Nicole Salame, 19, was filling out an application to UCLA last year when she got to the question about race and ethnicity. She thought a mistake had been made.
"I read it five times and was like, where is Middle Eastern?" the freshman recently recalled. "Is it on the other page, did it get cut off? I thought they forgot."
Her Lebanese-born mother told her Arabs are considered white, but Salame didn't believe her. Her high school counselor told her the same thing.
"It did not make sense to me, it's so far-fetched," said Salame, who ended up checking "Other."
For years the federal government has classified Arab Americans and Middle Easterners as white. But confusion and disagreement have led some students to check "Asian" or "African," depending on what part of the Middle East they came from. Some, like Salame, simply marked "Other."
Now several UCLA student groups -- including Arabs, Iranians, Afghanis and Armenians -- have launched a campaign to add a Middle Eastern category, with various subgroups, to the University of California admissions application. They hope to emulate the Asian Pacific Coalition's "Count Me In" campaign, which a few years ago successfully lobbied for the inclusion of 23 ethnic categories on the UC application, including Hmong, Pakistani, Native Hawaiian and Samoan.
The UCLA students said having their own ethnic designation goes beyond self-identity and has real implications for the larger Arab and Middle Eastern communities.
The "white" label can hurt them with universities and companies that use the information to promote diversity, they say, and can result in the gathering of little or no statistical data on important issues, such as health trends in the community. Voter-approved Proposition 209 bars California's public colleges from considering race in admissions.
The Arab American Institute estimates that including Middle Easterners in the white category on the census has led to a population undercount of more than a million, said Helen Samhan, who works at the institute. There are more than 3 million Arabs in the United States, the institute says.
There is no count of Middle Easterners at UCLA. Student groups estimate that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Persians and Arabs among the more than 40,000 students on campus.
"It's not just about wanting a category on a form," said Sarah Gualtieri, a USC professor of American studies and ethnicity. "I think you see particularly among a younger population a desire to really claim . . . both sides of the hyphen of Arab and American."
Gualtieri is the author of a forthcoming book, "Between Arab and White: Race and Ethnicity in the Early Syrian American Diaspora," that explores how Syrian immigrants, who were considered Asian, waged a legal battle in the early 1900s to be classified as white and thus eligible for citizenship. At the time some were barred by the courts under the Asian Exclusion Act.
That classification was cemented in the late 1970s when the Office of Management and Budget, a federal agency, listed all Middle Easterners as white.
But in the last few decades there has been a push to establish a separate category as the general population has grown more diverse and because of the possible benefits it could bring.
"Back then, to get rights you needed to be white," said Yasi Chehroudi, president of the Iranian Student Group, which is helping spearhead the University of California campaign. "Now it helps to be yourself."
UC officials are aware of the UCLA students' campaign and are exploring the possibility of changing the ethnic categories on the university's application form, said Nina Robinson, director of policy for the Department of Student Affairs. A decision could come in the next six months.
But any change in ethnicity categories could affect data trends, Robinson said. For example, if those who in the past would have checked white were to start checking another category, it would appear as a sudden drop in white applicants.
"It's reasonable that Middle Eastern people don't like to be lumped in with white, so I think there's a lot of sympathy for the issue," Robinson said. "But there are also a lot of issues" to consider.
In a 1997 report on the census, the Office of Management and Budget pointed out that while Arab Americans suffer from stereotyping, they tend to be more educated and affluent than the average American. The report questioned whether they should be placed in a minority category, which could increase their chances for benefits aimed at the socially and economically disadvantaged. Some in the Middle Eastern community agree.
But UCLA junior Shawn Gabrill said he has more in common with other children of immigrants than with those whose parents were born in this country.
"I feel like when I put down 'white' on an application, they assume my parents finished high school, went to college and that English was my first language," the 20-year-old English major said. "And none of these things describe me."
Gabrill, the son of Jordanian and Egyptian parents, said he had difficulties with the college application but, because he was seen as white, he wasn't identified as someone who needed extra help from high school counselors.
"So it's kind of like we're in between. We're not white, but we're not as disadvantaged as the other groups so we don't get any of that aid," he said. "So we're kind of invisible in that way."
I know a guy from Palestine, I used to work with, a Palestinian Christian, last year we had a conversation about this. He says he only marks white when he can't mark other, he considers whites to be European. He did add that not all Arabs think like that, but in the Middle East most people don't call themselves "white" anyway.
In my experience some Arabs, especially from the Levant and who are Christians (I guess cultural context matters) are usually considered white in America depending on phenotype, like Casey Kassam and Tony Shalhoub, as well as the various congressmen and senators we have with Arab Christian names who are not considered minorities by anyone I know.
That being said, Osama Bin Laden would likely not be considered white by the vast majorities of Americans on appearance.
Tony Shalhoub (Levant Christian, I think Syrian or Lebanese)
Saudis
Sudanese Arabs
All these folks would be considered white by the census, but I think in reality they are not all treated as such on a daily basis in America.
I wonder are those who are complaining at UCLA the darker Middle Eastern folks who aren't "passing"...
It could be they feel they are discriminated against but they get no benefit from affirmative action because legally they are white people.
Posted: Thu 02 Apr 2009 15:26 Post subject: Re: Middle Eastern Students Don't Want to Be White Anymore
From the article:
Quote:
The "white" label can hurt them with universities and companies that use the information to promote diversity, they say, and can result in the gathering of little or no statistical data on important issues, such as health trends in the community. Voter-approved Proposition 209 bars California's public colleges from considering race in admissions.
The Arab American Institute estimates that including Middle Easterners in the white category on the census has led to a population undercount of more than a million, said Helen Samhan, who works at the institute. There are more than 3 million Arabs in the United States, the institute says.
As this quote illustrates, the tribal spoils system is in part one of the reasons behind the desire for recognition as a seperate entity from whites.
This trend of course means that in the near future ALL Middle Eastern people in the U.S. will join hands with other oppressed people of color to agitate for social justice. Something to look forward to. Maybe the common bonds I share with them will make their women folk more receptive to my advances . One can only hope.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Quote:
In my experience some Arabs, especially from the Levant and who are Christians (I guess cultural context matters) are usually considered white in America depending on phenotype, like Casey Kassam and Tony Shalhoub, as well as the various congressmen and senators we have with Arab Christian names who are not considered minorities by anyone I know.
Casey Kassem (Kemal Amin Kasem) is a Druze, or he was born a Druze. I'm not sure if he is still one religiously. I think Jesse Jackson married Kasem and his second wife, so Kassem can't be that much of a Druze I suppose.
I assume most Arab Americans (as opposed to recent immigrants from the Middle East) are Levantine people, like most "Turcos" in Latin America and most "Syrians" in the Caribbean islands like Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, etc. Generally, these people, regardless of religious affiliation, are more Mediterranean in appearance than, say, a Yemenite Arab. They, at least to me, look like Greeks or maybe people of Southern Italian background. Depending on where they live and how they dress they probably don’t look radically different from a mainstream (white) American.
California was referenced in the article. I wonder how the large Armenian population out there feels. Do they desire a separate category? Many of them are from Middle Eastern Diaspora communities and they are just as dark or light as many Arabs. Wouldn’t they fit into the Middle Eastern category as well?
Additionally, despite all of the horrible treatment Arabs and Middle Eastern people supposedly receive in the U.S., I’d be curious to see how they are faring educationally and occupationally. Armenians and Armenian Americans, as dark as they are, appear to be doing well for themselves. The same can be said for third and fourth generation Middle Eastern Americans.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 02 Apr 2009 18:23 Post subject:
Quote:
As this quote illustrates, the tribal spoils system is in part one of the reasons behind the desire for recognition as a seperate entity from whites.
This trend of course means that in the near future ALL Middle Eastern people in the U.S. will join hands with other oppressed people of color to agitate for social justice. Something to look forward to. Maybe the common bonds I share with them will make their women folk more receptive to my advances Confused. One can only hope.
haha...Persian, Lebanese, and Armenian women are fine.
Quote:
Additionally, despite all of the horrible treatment Arabs and Middle Eastern people supposedly receive in the U.S., I’d be curious to see how they are faring educationally and occupationally. Armenians and Armenian Americans, as dark as they are, appear to be doing well for themselves. The same can be said for third and fourth generation Middle Eastern Americans.
Most of them are not random immigrants they are highly selected. Every Arab I have met here at least has a bachelors or the equivalent, I think a majority of the ones I have met have Masters or terminal degrees in something. So like "non-White" Asians, they do pretty well.
The only discrimination I have heard Arabs speak about, to me, is discrimination because they are Muslims, not necessarily because of "phenotypical appearance"...
Frank's theory is that becoming white and being mainstream are synonymous. It seems, if this trend expands outside of California, that Middle Eastern people will refuse the Mainstream, but then again, I question if Muslims can ever be mainstream in the United States.
If they are Caucasians, then they are White (caveat: I don't consider most E. Indians (also 'Caucasoid') to be White).
I had an Iranian friend in college who checked 'Other' (she looked 'Hispanic') and she didn't consider herself to be White. Other ME/Arabs people have told me they were White. Those ME/Arabs mixed with Black have told me they were Nationality/Other/Non-White. So it depends.
The quick test is that most are not 1-dropped (exlude Sudanese & Gulf Arabs) and their children are more or less White Americans if they intermarry. I think another anthro site I belonged to called this 'genetic/racial distance' or something.....it predicted on a scale those closest to 'Whiteness' via intermarriage/interbreeding based upon nationality, lol.
This article seems to suggest to me that, for some individuals, the "tribal spoils system" better serves them when they identify as members of an oppressed out-group than it does for when they identify with the supposedly privileged in-group (whiteness). This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that this woman has a clear option of, and even feels pressured toward, being regarded as a fully recognized member of a supposedly privileged in-group (whiteness).
I would never be one to deny anyone the right to self identify as they see fit. But if we are to be consistent, then we should probably start allowing (and maybe even encouraging) Americans with visibly recognizable English, German, Irish, etc. ancestry to deny "whiteness" too. Maybe such minority sub-groupings should even be entitled to special anti-discriminatory protections and provisions.
we should probably start allowing (and maybe even encouraging) Americans with visibly recognizable English, German, Irish, etc. ancestry to deny "whiteness" too. Maybe such minority sub-groupings should even be entitled to special anti-discriminatory protections and provisions.
Last weekend, at the annual Florida storyteller's guild conference, we met a woman who is a Cajun (Acadian) activist. She and her group have been trying for years to lobby Congress to order the Census Bureau to add "Cajun or Acadian" as a distinct "race" checkbox. They believe that largesse will flow to them from the public coffers if they can get classified as a minority "race."
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sat 04 Apr 2009 11:44 Post subject:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
This article seems to suggest to me that, for some individuals, the "tribal spoils system" better serves them when they identify as members of an oppressed out-group than it does for when they identify with the supposedly privileged in-group (whiteness). This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that this woman has a clear option of, and even feels pressured toward, being regarded as a fully recognized member of a supposedly privileged in-group (whiteness).
I would never be one to deny anyone the right to self identify as they see fit. But if we are to be consistent, then we should probably start allowing (and maybe even encouraging) Americans with visibly recognizable English, German, Irish, etc. ancestry to deny "whiteness" too. Maybe such minority sub-groupings should even be entitled to special anti-discriminatory protections and provisions.
I agree, this could be good to destroy the idea of "white" by breaking it down into subgroups. This creates more competition groups who have no choice but to form varying coalitions. It is like a Parliament with no majority compared to one with a strong majority.
Most of them are not random immigrants they are highly selected. Every Arab I have met here at least has a bachelors or the equivalent, I think a majority of the ones I have met have Masters or terminal degrees in something. So like "non-White" Asians, they do pretty well.
Yes. As example, the woman in the article is a student at UCLA. Not a bad place to study.
Dragon Horse wrote:
The only discrimination I have heard Arabs speak about, to me, is discrimination because they are Muslims, not necessarily because of "phenotypical appearance"...
I have heard Muslims complain about being discriminated against unjustly, particularly since 9/11. And I even have a friend from India, who is a Hindu and not a Muslim, describe incidents in which he was mistreated primarily for being taken as a Muslim. I would not wish to belittle, in any way, the plight that some may feel. Such discrimination is unjust, whatever direction it is pointed.
But, since we are all victims of discrimination on some level, where do we draw the line in terms of public policy in America? Also, should Muslims be treated as one "anti-discrimination" group or several distinct ones? Does a Palestinian go in the same group or a different group as a North African, Persian, Indonesian, etc. who is Muslim? Should lighter skinned Muslims be treated different from darker skinned ones? Should we similarly taxonomize sub-groupings for European and East Asian and African and Spanish speaking populations? I am beginning to image a census form with literally hundreds of boxes to select from.
I think that there is a marked difference between such policies as affirmative action, as they were originally conceived for dealing with America's black-white dichotomy, and the contemporary scene in which any immigrant ethnic identity group can promote its own interests via a checkbox on a form and a set of legal provisions. Affirmative action has sure become increasingly complicated after a few decades of newly arriving American immigrants, and will no doubt become even more complicated in decades to come.
fwsweet wrote:
Last weekend, at the annual Florida storyteller's guild conference, we met a woman who is a Cajun (Acadian) activist. She and her group have been trying for years to lobby Congress to order the Census Bureau to add "Cajun or Acadian" as a distinct "race" checkbox. They believe that largesse will flow to them from the public coffers if they can get classified as a minority "race."
I'm tempted to invent my own ethnic identity group and see what spoils I can accomplish for myself.
This article seems to suggest to me that, for some individuals, the "tribal spoils system" better serves them when they identify as members of an oppressed out-group than it does for when they identify with the supposedly privileged in-group (whiteness). This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that this woman has a clear option of, and even feels pressured toward, being regarded as a fully recognized member of a supposedly privileged in-group (whiteness).
I would never be one to deny anyone the right to self identify as they see fit. But if we are to be consistent, then we should probably start allowing (and maybe even encouraging) Americans with visibly recognizable English, German, Irish, etc. ancestry to deny "whiteness" too. Maybe such minority sub-groupings should even be entitled to special anti-discriminatory protections and provisions.
I agree, this could be good to destroy the idea of "white" by breaking it down into subgroups. This creates more competition groups who have no choice but to form varying coalitions. It is like a Parliament with no majority compared to one with a strong majority.
Or destroy the idea of race or black even, though I doubt the idea of white will ever be destroyed (or black for that matter imagine ). Many "race is just a social construct" types are profoundly race obsessed too and will still need the idea of white or whiteness for ideological purposes. Whiteness will still be seen as something against which to advocate as a means to justify their campaigns. Critical Race Theorists and Multiculturalists are two examples.
More group competition may simply lead to more group conflict outside of the realm ethnic/tribal spokespeople occupy. The official language embraced by leaders will be one of cooperation (within their own leadership corps for that group’s benefit), but the actual tribal members may be at each other’s throats or prefer to maintain distance from one another. This is often the case in many culturally diverse polities.
Any ideas on how to promote or advocate in favor of such a destruction, or dare I say maturation, without presenting oneself as antagonistic or coercive about identity? Extending such a maturation to include nationalistic, ethno-racial and/or religious identities across the entire plane of humanity strikes me as probably the global issue of our time.
G-Man wrote:
Many "race is just a social construct" types are profoundly race obsessed too and will still need the idea of white or whiteness for ideological purposes. Whiteness will still be seen as something against which to advocate as a means to justify their campaigns. Critical Race Theorists and Multiculturalists are two examples.
I absolutely agree. I think that multiculturalism and the more extreme forms of cultural relativism, in particular, are great dangers to the success of our thinking about cultures (and consequently races). In this vein, I think that we need to maintain a dialogue in which it is acceptable to critically scrutinize specified cultural practices and norms. And that we should concern ourselves with advocating in favor of shared cosmopolitan/cross-cultural ethics whilst distinguishing and simultaneously respecting those cultural differences that are better regarded as legitimately matters of subjective preference.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 07 Apr 2009 11:39 Post subject:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Or destroy the idea of race or black even,
A nice thought though, no?
Any ideas on how to promote or advocate in favor of such a destruction, or dare I say maturation, without presenting oneself as antagonistic or coercive about identity? Extending such a maturation to include nationalistic, ethno-racial and/or religious identities across the entire plane of humanity strikes me as probably the global issue of our time.
G-Man wrote:
Many "race is just a social construct" types are profoundly race obsessed too and will still need the idea of white or whiteness for ideological purposes. Whiteness will still be seen as something against which to advocate as a means to justify their campaigns. Critical Race Theorists and Multiculturalists are two examples.
I absolutely agree. I think that multiculturalism and the more extreme forms of cultural relativism, in particular, are great dangers to the success of our thinking about cultures (and consequently races). In this vein, I think that we need to maintain a dialogue in which it is acceptable to critically scrutinize specified cultural practices and norms. And that we should concern ourselves with advocating in favor of shared cosmopolitan/cross-cultural ethics whilst distinguishing and simultaneously respecting those cultural differences that are better regarded as legitimately matters of subjective preference.
I don't know about this. Race does not = culture.
I think in the absence of "race" it will be like what we see in nations that are mono-"racial" and mono-ethnic, which is more class based divergence in society, we have that in America but it is intertwined with race, which tends to hide and isolate low class whites. In many other nations these low class whites would be seriously at odds with the elite whites and even middle class whites politically but we see less of that in this country because race tends to trump class in many aspects.
If you weaken the concept of race you will likely see more class issues bubble up.
I wouldn't say equal. But cultural differences and the relationships and roles of the two cultures (black and white) within the greater sphere of American culture are a significant part of what perpetuates racialism and a black-white racial division, particularly in light of the outdating of a meaningful biological basis for this division.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I think in the absence of "race" it will be like what we see in nations that are mono-"racial" and mono-ethnic,
The alternative to a multicultural approach does not have to be that of a provincial or mono-cultural one. It can also be a cosmopolitan approach based on sharing. If two cultures share enough with one another they will lose their distinctness and separateness. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
I see it as a natural consequence of genuinely learning from and embracing one another.
Dragon Horse wrote:
which is more class based divergence in society, we have that in America but it is intertwined with race, which tends to hide and isolate low class whites. In many other nations these low class whites would be seriously at odds with the elite whites and even middle class whites politically but we see less of that in this country because race tends to trump class in many aspects.
Do we not already live in one of the most class divided societies in the developed world? How are you defining class here? I tend to think that low class "whites" and "white" elites are at greater odds with one another in America then in just about any developed country. I think the same of the disparity between low class and high class "blacks." What country or countries are you comparing the US with?
Dragon Horse wrote:
If you weaken the concept of race you will likely see more class issues bubble up.
Perhaps it is that the traditional caste system will disappear, making better visible those intense class divisions that already exist.
Do we not already live in one of the most class divided societies in the developed world? How are you defining class here? I tend to think that low class "whites" and "white" elites are at greater odds with one another in America then in just about any developed country.
I think that DH is talking about the rhetoric of political competition. The U.S. undoubtedly has the highest level of economic inequality in the Western world. But U.S. political rhetoric ignores economic inequality and continues obsessed with "racial" conflict Always has. Most scholars think it deliberate. "Racial" conflict distracts the exploited from attacking their exploiters and diverts their atttention to attacking the exploited of the other "race".
Dragon Horse wrote:
in the absence of "race" it will be like what we see in nations that are mono-"racial" and mono-ethnic, which is more class based divergence in society, we have that in America
I dunno. You can have (and the U.S. has had) ruthless, even bloody conflict between different ethnicities, even within the same "race." I suspect that ethnic conflict, especially voting-bloc competition for the spoils of the system, would continue unchanged even if the endogamous color line were to vanish tomorrow.
I think this is a good example, which demonstrates how silly racial classifications can be. I cannot say for sure, I do not think middle easterners would be considered white in the UK. I have Syrian ancestry and for some reason I never considered them white.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 07 Apr 2009 13:21 Post subject:
Frank pretty much summed up what I was getting at.
A cosmopolitan approach is questionable. White Americans share far more culture with black Americans than they do with European immigrants, especially Europeans from the continent, but that has never stopped Europeans from integrating into the white American mainstream right over the heads of black Americans. There is a dynamic at work there that is stronger than this similar cultures blending and sharing and eventual forming one unit.
Quote:
Perhaps it is that the traditional caste system will disappear, making better visible those intense class divisions that already exist.
This is what I'm thinking.
Quote:
How are you defining class here? I tend to think that low class "whites" and "white" elites are at greater odds with one another in America then in just about any developed country.
Maybe, maybe not. You don't see our blue collar workers (primarily white union works specifically) going nuts in the streets as often you do in continental Europe, strikes here are rare and violent strikes are far rarer than in Europe.
This also reminds me of a scene in a movie, "Mississippi Burning", where one white FBI agent from Mississippi tells another white agent from the Northern part of AMerica that his father did something bad to a black neighbor to bring him down a notch because "if you aren't better than a n$*#*r what are you?" or something like.
Quote:
I think the same of the disparity between low class and high class "blacks." What country or countries are you comparing the US with?
This is true. Many black middle class and upper-class people talk badly about and discriminate against lower class blacks all day, but this is generally inside the black community. It is rare to see a black person do this in front of whites.
In the media it is the middle and upper-class blacks who defend lower class blacks and often blame whites for the condition of the lower class and then go home and talk about those ig'nant ghetto n$*$*rs. I have seen this my entire life. IF a white man says something negative about lower class blacks, almost always a black person, often who is not lower class will jump all over the white person and label them racist.
So class in America does not trump race, generally.
Perhaps it is that the traditional caste system will disappear, making better visible those intense class divisions that already exist.
This is what I'm thinking.
That would be a good thing, right?
Dragon Horse wrote:
Erasmusinfinity wrote:
I tend to think that low class "whites" and "white" elites are at greater odds with one another in America then in just about any developed country.
Maybe, maybe not. You don't see our blue collar workers (primarily white union works specifically) going nuts in the streets as often you do in continental Europe, strikes here are rare and violent strikes are far rarer than in Europe.
I was not meaning that Americans are angrier than others about class difference than are continental European counterparts. To the contrary, it is my perception that Americans are more complacent and/or more ignorant about class difference than are persons in continental Europe. I only meant that Americans lived with a greater degree of class difference.
Dragon Horse wrote:
So class in America does not trump race, generally.
I was not trying to present a competition between race and class in America, or assert that class was a more powerful force. I was trying to get at something along these lines-
Dragon Horse wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
The U.S. undoubtedly has the highest level of economic inequality in the Western world. But U.S. political rhetoric ignores economic inequality and continues obsessed with "racial" conflict Always has. Most scholars think it deliberate. "Racial" conflict distracts the exploited from attacking their exploiters and diverts their atttention to attacking the exploited of the other "race".
Frank pretty much summed up what I was getting at.
I agree with all of this.
Dragon Horse wrote:
A cosmopolitan approach is questionable.
Are you meaning that the desirability of a cosmopolitan approach is questionable or are you meaning that the likelihood of a cosmopolitan approach being realizable is unlikely?
Dragon Horse wrote:
There is a dynamic at work there that is stronger than this similar cultures blending and sharing and eventual forming one unit.
I agree that there is a dynamic at work. Perhaps part of this dynamic, as the trend has been going post-civil rights era, is the notion of a "black" identity that is principally defined as a separate culture as opposed to simply being the out-group in a traditional caste system.
Apart from culture, "blackness" may embody some sort of fuzzy and inconsistent noticeable morphologically. But how else is it that "black" lists as a category right alongside categories like Latino/Hispanic which are determined by almost entirely unrelated criterion if it is not the standard multiculturalist pretense of grouping people into neat little cultural packages and insisting that they each be respected for their differences.
This multiculturalist approach strikes me as remarkably anti-integrationist. While it very well may serve the political interests of tribal chieftains, it certainly isn't very good for Capulet who falls in Love with a Montague. And it means denying all parties of the riches and fruits of everything that lies outside of their cultural package.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 07 Apr 2009 16:02 Post subject:
Erasmusinfinity:
Well the disappearance of any caste system is a good thing, but when you try to remove any system you alienate those who benefit under the current system (many whites, some black elites, etc) or piss off those who are trying to somehow move up in the current system (imop, many but not all multiracial advocates, who think holding on to the framework is okay as long as they get an official spot of their own).
Cosmopolitanism is fine, depending on the motivating factor. It would have to be a strong multi-pronged approach that is likely enforced by government over a significant period to reeducate Americans out of their current ignorance. Simply preaching the virtues of cosmopolitanism is not going to do it. Alternatives might be appeals to nationalism and Americanism...I'm not sure though, haven't given that much thought to it.
As far as black and if they are a out-group in a caste system or a culture. I don't think it is either/or. Being an out-group in a caste system historically created a centrifugal force that united blacks into a "sub culture"...I realize most multicultural advocates do not promote this to be the case, but reality is that black Americans (meaning African American who have been here since slavery) do not have a West African culture, more an Anglo-Saxon Southern culture with some West African affinities.
If you want to create a society like France where the idea is that everyone is the same or should be and there is one culture, one language. There are many white people who might object to this let alone black people. Does that mean no more Saint Patrick Day Celebrations.
Personally I would prefer the French way to an extent, because I would like Americans to be a true nationality...I have lived in a mono-ethnic culture and I see a lot of benefits to that and I think overtime (like a period of centuries) these types of nation-states prove to be more stable. Time will tell though.
I predict it will all be about class and ethnicity soon. Race in America will probably always be noticed, but it won't matter as much as class, income, education, nationality, etc. Your appearance, or the perception of your appearance (total package) will probably matter most in the coming decades -i.e your income, neighborhood, schools, where you live, work, play, etc. Just look at our country now, the waggons are circling and those of the same mindset/class are digging in. We have White Flight, Black Flight, Elderly Flight (55+), Rural Flight, etc.
And I would venture to say that low class people of any 'race' or ethnicity are despised most by their own members. I have had White Americans talk about 'trashy' Whites in front of me, people who would never say outloud any negative opinion about AAs. I also have had Whites (even strangers) say negative things to me about Asians, foreign people, and Mexicans, lol.
Another example - I have seen/known proper speaking AAs get treated better than low class Whites by Middle and Upper-Middle class Whites. I think its all about perception. I've have gained greater respect from Asians once they knew about my advanced degree. Oh, they were never disrespectful before, but you could tell there was more respect there, they became more interested in me/my opinions once they knew my background. No suprise since many E. Asians in the US value education.
Anyways, I think race will always matter here for while, but other things (ethnicity, shared history, cultural norms, $, education, etc) will just matter MORE.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
. One can only hope.
So it depends.
). Many "race is just a social construct" types are profoundly race obsessed too and will still need the idea of white or whiteness for ideological purposes. Whiteness will still be seen as something against which to advocate as a means to justify their campaigns. Critical Race Theorists and Multiculturalists are two examples.
