And, on the other hand, there are important technologies which were developed in Africa before being developed in Europe. Your claim from earlier seems to fly in the face of history:
Africa was no utopia when white people arrived and there is no reason to believe it would have improved if they had never arrived at all
And, on the other hand, there are important technologies which were developed in Africa before being developed in Europe. Your claim from earlier seems to fly in the face of history:
Cool, what technologies?
My statement about it not improving meant in comparison to Europe since the worldview I was criticizing was based on the hollow argument that all of Africa's problems are the result of colonialism. My own review of Africa's history shows empires, wars, slavery, famine, etc. all predating the arrival of Europeans and if they had not shown up I do not see why those problems would have simply gone away on there own. An end to war, slavery, and famine is not something that simply happens. It is not a given.
@OP: If you want to start a discussion on race relations it would be better to use the word "African American" instead of black. Proper terms maybe of some import if you want to discuss a sensitive issue like this one.
1. Do you think that the US as a whole has any issues with other cultures, native or otherwise, being a part of the American experience?
The american experience...? I personally think the US being a nation being built on the providing a safe haven for immigrants is what made it great. It would be disingenuous to say that they do not have race issues but I still think issues regarding immigration is a lot less of a thing than they are in the Netherlands or Sweden for example.
I personally think just like cultural diversity is a very good thing for a country to have. The US can provide a good example of how that leads to prosperity.
2. Should the dominant cultural block be able to dictate the cultural norms to all Americans?
No they should not. I do not think that is the case though. Is it even possible to dictate cultural norms?
3. Is a homogeneous culture more healthy for an established nation than a multicultural one?
Multi cultural all the way. I believe cultural diversity to be a tremendous asset to a country. The melting pot of ideas is at its best with many views and ideas to ponder and consider.
4. Is it possible to create a homogeneous culture from a nation formed out of many ethnicities and cultures?
Not in the 21st century I think.
Not all of Africa was "so far behind". Countries like Aksum, Kanem, Great Zimbabwe, Mali, Songhai, etc. were legitimate national entities, not completely backwards tribesmen. Certainly Africa was behind, say, Renaissance Europe, but I think it would be a pretty big error to paint Africa a millennium ago as being uniquely and vastly behind the rest of the world.
Before Robert Mugabe ruined Zimbabwe it was a virtual utopia. It had tremendous agriculture. It was not called the Jewel of Africa for no reason. It is also rather ironic that you easily recognize a Zimbabwean in SA because they speak the best accent less English of anyone outside an university.
The Irish weren't really seen as white at first, tho. The English at least had hella racisms about them. idk about Germans but I do know that Italians had similar issues with being accepted due to belonging to catholic rather than protestant traditions.
Glad you got the point =D
The "modern" issue is that whites tend to get all grouped up into one group, while the whites themselves have their own ethnic groups and discriminated against one another depending on their cultural values and whatnot.
The same is true the other way around, of course. Koreans I've known tend to not like it when some white dude looks at us and says "Oh, are you Chinese? No? Maybe Japanese?" I'm sure Chinese and Japanese people don't like it when people assume that they're Korean too.
And, of course, the Chinese and Koreans tended to see the Japanese as backcountry hicks and ******* pirates up until the Japanese went and burned Korea to the ground and whooped the Chinese in a couple of battles in the late 1500s.
The point is, grouping ethnic groups into all encompassing titles like white and Asian while simultaneously trying to make a point about not doing it is a bit... contradictory, and one that I hoped to point at in my post responding to the OP.
The Irish weren't really seen as white at first, tho.
That's an oversimplification. They were seen as white; hard to call them "white n*****s" otherwise. Racists simply didn't transpose "All nonwhites are inferior" into "All inferiors are nonwhite". It was perfectly possible for some whites to also be inferior.
Two points for valid logic, I guess?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Europe's dominance was it's ability to synthesize and explore rapidly and expand genetically rapidly. It's not who comes up with the idea first, it's who can bring it to scale first and sustain that scale is the winner. This is why Europe got it's balls kicked after WWII's devastation, while the US manufacturing rose in prominence.
It's as if you have a great garden, and I decide to plow it over. You rebuild each time, hoping for a wonderful garden. Then you look across the road, and find out that the other neighbor has a splendid garden that overtime is allowed to mature fully with increasingly more complexity and refinement. One has sustained creative destruction, while the other has sustained destructive creation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Wait, wait, wait, hang on. I'm going to stop you here.
Define these terms. Establish concrete definitions for what you mean when you say the following:
My inability to handle my real life made me forget about this thread!
What exactly do you mean by a "struggle in American culture against the otherness of foreign and non-White cultures and influences"?
On the seal of the United States of America is the phrase "e pluribus unum", which translates to "out of many, one", which is a nod to the myriad of backgrounds US citizens come from. I personally feel that many Americans, throughout the history of the country, have taken that to mean that we must not only have a unified national identity but also a unified cultural identity. Frankly, foreign and non-White cultures are a threat to a unified cultural identity because including them would force people to see beyond their noses and face the potential backlash from past wrongs wrought by the dominant culture.
What does it mean to have a "White" identity and culture?
Identity is easier to define than culture. To have a substantial Caucasian background is what generally defines a White identity. Culture is more defined by what country you're from. In America, a person who identifies as White is someone with a Caucasian background, which is the dominant ethnic group and has achieved a certain degree of homogeneity.
How is this separate from an "American" identity and culture?
How is this separate from a "Black" identity and culture?
How is this separate from a "Native American" identity and culture?
The American identity is a national identity and while its also a culture it isn't an ethnic identity. It touches the lives of all who live in the US yet in a different way depending on ethnicity and other factors, such as wealth and where you live.
Black and Native American identity and culture, like their White counterparts, is first defined along ethnic lines and additionally have the onerous distinction of being marred by the brush of repeated government sponsored victimhood.
In what way are they not seen as real cultures?
They're not really seen as being important parts of American culture. If they weren't major contributors to US heritage then I could understand why they are treated like divergent cultures that have niches in society(like reservations or urban hellholes) but not important roles to play.
Let me put it another way. If you were visiting the US from anywhere other than the Americas, would you recognize Black or Native American identity or culture as particularly important to the national identity? No, because you would see mostly White faces on TV and in movies, White authors lining the shelves of book stores, and White politicians in most seats of government. Unless you go looking for it you will not find evidence of acknowledgement or celebration of non-White cultures.
In what way are they being "culturally appropriated"?
Cultural appropriation is so pervasive that I'm not surprised someone would ask this. The most common example of it seems to be a White person wearing a Native American ceremonial headdress or one of those obnoxious rasta hats with the attached dreadlocks merely because it looks cool. Heck, Katy Perry and Selena Gomez have both recently been publically blasted for tidbiting from different cultures simply because they like the look of them.
I'm not saying that everyone who does this sort of thing is a bad person. You can borrow from other cultures but you must do so with awareness and sensitivity. I don't know about anyone else but I'd feel weird about wearing a tallit or a hijab. Not because they're from other cultures but because I understand what they mean to their respective cultures. I guess what I'm saying is that there needs to be an exchange rather than merely a one sided grabfest and that is not happening in American culture.
Cultural appropriation could have its own thread and anyone else is free to start one.
In what way are they being misrepresented?
Ethnic stereotypes. I really thought that was pretty obvious. They still exist and are still affecting people's actions and attitudes. Just because your neighbor is Chinese and really great doesn't stop you from equating them with the cat-eating, Fu Manchu stereotype and treating them subtly different because of it.
I personally feel that many Americans, throughout the history of the country, have taken that to mean that we must not only have a unified national identity but also a unified cultural identity.
Clarify the difference?
Frankly, foreign and non-White cultures are a threat to a unified cultural identity because including them would force people to see beyond their noses and face the potential backlash from past wrongs wrought by the dominant culture.
Elaborate?
Identity is easier to define than culture. To have a substantial Caucasian background is what generally defines a White identity. Culture is more defined by what country you're from. In America, a person who identifies as White is someone with a Caucasian background, which is the dominant ethnic group and has achieved a certain degree of homogeneity.
So, in other words, "all white people are the same"?
The American identity is a national identity and while its also a culture it isn't an ethnic identity.
So what separates the national identity from the cultural identity?
Further, what does it mean to have a black identity or a Native American identity versus a white identity?
It touches the lives of all who live in the US yet in a different way depending on ethnicity and other factors, such as wealth and where you live.
Ok, why and in what way?
Black and Native American identity and culture, like their White counterparts, is first defined along ethnic lines and additionally have the onerous distinction of being marred by the brush of repeated government sponsored victimhood.
Also, are you lumping race and culture as being the same thing? Are all black people the same culture?
They're not really seen as being important parts of American culture.
Elaborate?
Let me put it another way. If you were visiting the US from anywhere other than the Americas, would you recognize Black or Native American identity or culture as particularly important to the national identity?
You still haven't actually clarified the relationship between what you mean by national identity, cultural identity, and racial identity.
Cultural appropriation is so pervasive that I'm not surprised someone would ask this.
Maybe you should define what you mean by the term.
The most common example of it seems to be a White person wearing a Native American ceremonial headdress or one of those obnoxious rasta hats with the attached dreadlocks merely because it looks cool. Heck, Katy Perry and Selena Gomez have both recently been publically blasted for tidbiting from different cultures simply because they like the look of them.
Why are white people wearing things from other cultures a problem?
I'm not saying that everyone who does this sort of thing is a bad person.
Seems like you were. Clarify the difference?
I guess what I'm saying is that there needs to be an exchange rather than merely a one sided grabfest and that is not happening in American culture.
In what way is it a one-sided grabfest?
Ethnic stereotypes. I really thought that was pretty obvious.
It's evident you think a lot of things are pretty obvious.
However, I'm asking you to apply concrete definitions to things. That way, we have a coherent argument and not a bunch of vague claims.
They still exist and are still affecting people's actions and attitudes. Just because your neighbor is Chinese and really great doesn't stop you from equating them with the cat-eating, Fu Manchu stereotype and treating them subtly different because of it.
To what extent, and how prevalent are these stereotypes, and how problematic are they?
On the seal of the United States of America is the phrase "e pluribus unum", which translates to "out of many, one", which is a nod to the myriad of backgrounds US citizens come from. I personally feel that many Americans, throughout the history of the country, have taken that to mean that we must not only have a unified national identity but also a unified cultural identity. Frankly, foreign and non-White cultures are a threat to a unified cultural identity because including them would force people to see beyond their noses and face the potential backlash from past wrongs wrought by the dominant culture.
Culture and identity is one of my areas of specialization, you may want to read Invisible Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania. Considering you're own personal history and relative proximity to that state may have some interest in it. It talks about how Native Americans have adapted to modern life and became "Invisible" through intervening years, much like your own family being part Indian and then gradually becoming more Africanized each passing generation. But it brings up an interesting point about the living historians who like to dress up and live like Indians, and those who are of actual descent. Which is a particular point really how each one views the other, and gets to a point about "what does it mean to be an Indian."
What does it mean to have a "White" identity and culture?
Identity is easier to define than culture. To have a substantial Caucasian background is what generally defines a White identity. Culture is more defined by what country you're from. In America, a person who identifies as White is someone with a Caucasian background, which is the dominant ethnic group and has achieved a certain degree of homogeneity.
A part of black culture has also slipped into white culture, as well as other parts and pieces. This homogeneity also extends to certain American Indians and African Americans as well. Third generation drift is very strong.
Black and Native American identity and culture, like their White counterparts, is first defined along ethnic lines and additionally have the onerous distinction of being marred by the brush of repeated government sponsored victimhood.
They also had sex with white people and made babies. If you study Mexico you'll see a large shift with intermarriage creating what's called a "Mestizofication" of the national population. Intermarriage among settlers and Indians throughout time has been high, to the point that some tribes are, carrying a lot of white features and cultural identity. Granted there's a borrowing from the Plains Indians to seed a culture, however as the original culture through the extermination and Indians Wars but also just because people were lazy or fear retribution.
The unique case for the black identity in the creation of a partial white and black identity is something that is often regional and rather complicated. As some were forced power structure abuses, while others such as Chevalier de Saint-George who was so loved by his father that he took his black mistress and son to France.
He was called the Black Mozart, and there's strong evidence that Mozard did copy at least once piece from him. He fought in the French Revolution, and on and on. Whereas you can compare that to say the experience in other areas for such people in Port Towns and ect. There are some works on them, but it's been over twenty years since I've read them that I can't source it.
They're not really seen as being important parts of American culture. If they weren't major contributors to US heritage then I could understand why they are treated like divergent cultures that have niches in society(like reservations or urban hellholes) but not important roles to play.
Let me put it another way. If you were visiting the US from anywhere other than the Americas, would you recognize Black or Native American identity or culture as particularly important to the national identity? No, because you would see mostly White faces on TV and in movies, White authors lining the shelves of book stores, and White politicians in most seats of government. Unless you go looking for it you will not find evidence of acknowledgement or celebration of non-White cultures.
The problem is also that Pan Africanism had some issues trying to import made up holidays like Kwanzaa or certain elements like the Nation of Islam trying to build a myth around the lost Shabazz tribe. I'm not at all really surprised by this failure, even in my own life time. What I have often thought is that to push forward means to understand that certain roots aren't coming back.
You have to understand for those of us that aren't in the predicament of severance, yes we're able to rely on what "our parents created" but also that the creative destruction process means we must also forge our own identities. My children are bi-racial, they will have to come to their own identity to embrace what aspects of what we teach them. But as my father once told me, "You can't be me, you will never experience the world as I do. Find your own path, take what we taught you and pass on what you love."
An older gentlemen in my neighborhood whom I often spoke with also told me often to establish my own identity and others will follow if you are naturally strong. As I've grown, I've found that the generation of thoughts and ideas, whether you want to call them memetics or entrepreneurialism or whatever, means that we must create our own identity and then share that identity. Part of that is through consumerism, granted my own "identity" isn't mass produced such as say Taylor Swift or Beyonce Knowles. Which nothing wrong with mass branding if you stand for a quality work.
However, this is where the point about capital and differentiation oneself through self expression to help generate over time a cultural identity by sharing that and having people copy it. It takes a lot of time, and there's this sense in some of these communities about their own identity and lost culture. However, this has also happened in some white cultures that were oppressed and had their own language and became homogenized. You see this with the Welsh in England, it was passe to speak Welsh. However, as time has went on the renewed interest in a self identity with youngsters has rekindled that lost language and a renewal in culture.
I can see where people like Charles L. Blockson have scoured the world to bring back artifacts and works to the States since his teacher told him there was no such thing as black history. But I have to look at people like Ralph Ellison who took the black identity and made a touch stone piece in Invisible Man. But the identity as "invisible" is an identity in and of itself, where you have to begin to put together an actual identity and make it applicable.
Certain tribes have done quite well, and frankly I disagree with you on the lack of expression for the Native American experience. The culture is rebuilding itself, but will take hundreds of years to reach a lot of prominence. It is relevant globally, and valued locally. The problem is a lack of Bollywood or "Mecca" source that produces rapidly high quality products. With the increasingly decentralized nature of movie making, we must also contend that Atlanta is becoming a major places for film making as well as lower budget yet effect workers like Tyler Perry are helping to generate a culture. I just wish there were more so that there's more variety, but this will take more time. But the wealth and a middle class are there along with consumers globally.
However, I have serious reservations about certain culturally expropriated themes and styles from the cities and these symbols and usages need to be entwined more into a better message that is much more pro-family and pro-community.
In what way are they being "culturally appropriated"?
Cultural appropriation is so pervasive that I'm not surprised someone would ask this. The most common example of it seems to be a White person wearing a Native American ceremonial headdress or one of those obnoxious rasta hats with the attached dreadlocks merely because it looks cool. Heck, Katy Perry and Selena Gomez have both recently been publically blasted for tidbiting from different cultures simply because they like the look of them.
Living historians and the like are actually rather helpful to spread cultural symbols, this is why you see black people wearing jeans and don't see white people wearing rasta hats. However, with consumerism the feedback loop by taking some white styles of dress then turning them around and rebranding them and placing them into stores has already occurred, too.
One must also look at cultural oddballs like Eminem, a white rapper. When he started he was a bit random, today he is mainstream. Men like him make for themselves their own identity and make others follow. I do not like his art, I see it as atrocious. However, I find he has honor based on where he came from and how he grew. This is where individuality makes the difference.
I'm not saying that everyone who does this sort of thing is a bad person. You can borrow from other cultures but you must do so with awareness and sensitivity. I don't know about anyone else but I'd feel weird about wearing a tallit or a hijab. Not because they're from other cultures but because I understand what they mean to their respective cultures. I guess what I'm saying is that there needs to be an exchange rather than merely a one sided grabfest and that is not happening in American culture.
And we also have to be less sensitive, there's Piss Christ:
After a while, Christians don't care but Muslims want to hunt down some Swedish cartoonist a decade later. At some point, you need to over yourself and realize that someone is going to exploit you commercially. Which is why you need to have a good brand and people out there being a good witness to the culture itself.
I see you brought up Selena Gomez and the like, yet you have some syncretists like Shakira. Looking at her wikipedia page, she's Lebanese, Spanish, and Italian. Is the reason why we don't see her as a problem, or is it that she's a minority and part majority? I don't see how people like my own children can get away with being "ethnic yet not" because of blood purity, no similar than Mrs. Ripoll if she was a pure Spaniard.
That something is "stolen" or "cheapened," then well we have to consider Cowboy Troy and Eminem to be equally evil.
After a while, I don't have a problem with either really, it doesn't affect my daily life. No it doesn't, nor do you see them denigrating a culture they're creating their own culture. I don't believe in them, but they're not hurting people and actually may what comes later be more appropriate. When you consider Russian underground rap, is that denigrating and exploiting American culture? Hardly, but it certainly is strange and can be construed as out of context for, well Russians.
Ethnic stereotypes. I really thought that was pretty obvious. They still exist and are still affecting people's actions and attitudes. Just because your neighbor is Chinese and really great doesn't stop you from equating them with the cat-eating, Fu Manchu stereotype and treating them subtly different because of it.
I've been discriminated through out my life always, even when I'm with my children I get to hear "speak English, this is America" from time to time when I'm trying to scold them without publicly humiliating them in front of others as one example.
However, we also help to create these stereotypes and it's people like the Eminems and Cowboy Troys that get rid of sanctified solipsism on symbols. If some half-Mexican, half-Italian girl wants to do something similar to Bollywood what's to stop her? If you don't want it commercialized then don't bloody commercialize it yourself.
Don't sell crosses, because you know you will have someone dunk it in a bucket of piss with the hyper creative name Piss Christ.
Don't share it, if you want it to be special among your own kind. The Amish have bastardized version of Pennsylvania German that in part is meant to keep outsiders out. With the other Pensylvania Dutch having committed cultural suicide by not passing along their own culture and allowing the Amish to have their own monopoly of it.
But what we must consider also in the example of the Amish is that they were marketed as a reaction of Germans in the US trying to avoid discrimination, by homogenizing and not passing on language and so forth but also by using the Amish as icons. The Amish have since fully exploited this to their own benefit, but it came as a sacrifice for non Amish Pensylvania Dutch culture.
So while you have people like Charles M. Blockson at Temple University that spent their lives looking for a national identity by going abroad, there were others that allowed their own culture to commit suicide. Which I find this cultural suicide a far greater anathema than anything. So is it better to kill your own culture, or to have it killed for you? As it seems to not just be an Indian or Black thing, it's also uniquely white thing as well as a cost of that homogenization.
Frankly, white Hispanic would be the proper term, fully Mexican-Italian-American. Still, she's a white chick that can speak English well and grew up in the States. Arabs are considered white under the American census, so Shakira Ripoll under American citizenship would be a white chick. The only ones who seem to get away with that are people like Barack Obama who self identify as black on the census but consider black to be multi-ethnic no similar than Halle Berry.
They're descended from white chicks, therefore it is proper to call them both black and white dude and chick respectively? No we acknowledge what they self identify as but also allow them credence when they decide to talk about their Irish heritage in Ireland like Obama did a few years ago.
From an outside perspective I often pull in this interesting article with black and white twins. Meaning that their father or mother was part white yet expressed black features and the other spouse was white, and one of the twins had predominantly African features while the other showed predominantly European features. I found their experience to be very intriguing:
I've found it quite interesting in dealing with identity on how people like Chevalier de Saint-George dealt with their identity as compared to Frederick Douglas whose father was white. Both slave born, one's father raised him as a noble the other allowed his son to live as a slave. Which goes back to individual decisions making a difference.
Saint-George had a large impact on classical music and inspired a Mozart piece, rather it was completely ripped off but I digress. Equally he fought during the French Revolution. He knew Mary Antoinette personally and on and on. Whereas Frederick Douglas rose to great prominence as a political leader and a significant impact on black culture and American culture at the same time.
Which also one must ask if you have to be "part something" to embrace that culture, or can you appreciate the culture and move onto other projects as an artist? Can't a person be a "white chick" but also Hispanic?
1. Do you think that the US as a whole has any issues with other cultures, native or otherwise, being a part of the American experience?
1a. Why or why not?
Yes. Although I think what you are describing is a characteristic that you will find throughout humanity. Xenophobia is NORMAL. People are instinctively scared of the different and the unknown. Discomfort with other cultures is just a symptom of that fundamental characteristic of our species. That isn't to say it should be encouraged or accepted, just that it should probably be expected if we are being realistic.
If anything I think you would actually find the US to be a relatively tolerant place if you compared it to the world as a whole.
2. Should the dominant cultural block be able to dictate the cultural norms to all Americans?
2a. Furthermore, should they be able to use popular culture and news outlets to do this?
No...but it is natural that the dominant cultural block will inherently impose some of its values/norms on the others due to sheer numbers/exposure. But if you look at the US legal system I think you will find that it does a relatively good job of protecting minority rights/cultures.
3. Is a homogeneous culture more healthy for an established nation than a multicultural one?
IDK, it probably depends on how you define "healthy" when it comes to describing a nation. Personally I would prefer to live in the multicultural place, but I can see the more homogenous society potentially being more efficient.
4. Is it possible to create a homogeneous culture from a nation formed out of many ethnicities and cultures?
4a. Furthermore, is there a way to do this besides violence?
Sure, with enough pressure you can get uniformity. And that pressure could probably be non-violent if the conditions were right.
On the seal of the United States of America is the phrase "e pluribus unum", which translates to "out of many, one", which is a nod to the myriad of backgrounds US citizens come from.
I'm pretty sure the "many" is the 13 colonies, and the "one" is the United States. I don't think it's intended to refer to cultural fusion.
I'm pretty sure the "many" is the 13 colonies, and the "one" is the United States. I don't think it's intended to refer to cultural fusion.
I agree that that's the primary meaning, but I'll point out that there was a streak of what we'd today call pluralism in the Founders' thinking. Now, of course, the "many" in their minds would have been predominantly English, Scots, Irish, and Dutch of various backgrounds and Christian sects, rather than immigrants from every nation and religion on the planet. But we see a broader pluralism in some of the things they wrote about Jews and Muslims when they really thought deeply about their principles of religious freedom - the Treaty of Tripoli is an oft-cited example here - as well as their wildly inconsistent but sometimes-actually-decent treatment of black Americans. Let us set aside the slaveowners among them for evil bastards. But when a man like John Adams says that he wants to see the black people emancipated and provided educations, he seems to be envisioning a future where they aren't just set free and shipped away to Africa, as some later abolitionists (including Lincoln) would advocate, but invited to participate as equals in American society.
And it must be remembered that, to a very limited degree, this was already happening in the North. It wasn't just English, Scots, Irish, and Dutch, after all; some free blacks, like Agrippa Hull, did all right by themselves and their community. (But see Hull's story also for an example of Thomas Jefferson being an especially evil bastard.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cool, what technologies?
My statement about it not improving meant in comparison to Europe since the worldview I was criticizing was based on the hollow argument that all of Africa's problems are the result of colonialism. My own review of Africa's history shows empires, wars, slavery, famine, etc. all predating the arrival of Europeans and if they had not shown up I do not see why those problems would have simply gone away on there own. An end to war, slavery, and famine is not something that simply happens. It is not a given.
The american experience...? I personally think the US being a nation being built on the providing a safe haven for immigrants is what made it great. It would be disingenuous to say that they do not have race issues but I still think issues regarding immigration is a lot less of a thing than they are in the Netherlands or Sweden for example.
I personally think just like cultural diversity is a very good thing for a country to have. The US can provide a good example of how that leads to prosperity.
No they should not. I do not think that is the case though. Is it even possible to dictate cultural norms?
Multi cultural all the way. I believe cultural diversity to be a tremendous asset to a country. The melting pot of ideas is at its best with many views and ideas to ponder and consider.
Not in the 21st century I think.
Before Robert Mugabe ruined Zimbabwe it was a virtual utopia. It had tremendous agriculture. It was not called the Jewel of Africa for no reason. It is also rather ironic that you easily recognize a Zimbabwean in SA because they speak the best accent less English of anyone outside an university.
Glad you got the point =D
The "modern" issue is that whites tend to get all grouped up into one group, while the whites themselves have their own ethnic groups and discriminated against one another depending on their cultural values and whatnot.
The same is true the other way around, of course. Koreans I've known tend to not like it when some white dude looks at us and says "Oh, are you Chinese? No? Maybe Japanese?" I'm sure Chinese and Japanese people don't like it when people assume that they're Korean too.
And, of course, the Chinese and Koreans tended to see the Japanese as backcountry hicks and ******* pirates up until the Japanese went and burned Korea to the ground and whooped the Chinese in a couple of battles in the late 1500s.
The point is, grouping ethnic groups into all encompassing titles like white and Asian while simultaneously trying to make a point about not doing it is a bit... contradictory, and one that I hoped to point at in my post responding to the OP.
That's an oversimplification. They were seen as white; hard to call them "white n*****s" otherwise. Racists simply didn't transpose "All nonwhites are inferior" into "All inferiors are nonwhite". It was perfectly possible for some whites to also be inferior.
Two points for valid logic, I guess?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's as if you have a great garden, and I decide to plow it over. You rebuild each time, hoping for a wonderful garden. Then you look across the road, and find out that the other neighbor has a splendid garden that overtime is allowed to mature fully with increasingly more complexity and refinement. One has sustained creative destruction, while the other has sustained destructive creation.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
My inability to handle my real life made me forget about this thread!
On the seal of the United States of America is the phrase "e pluribus unum", which translates to "out of many, one", which is a nod to the myriad of backgrounds US citizens come from. I personally feel that many Americans, throughout the history of the country, have taken that to mean that we must not only have a unified national identity but also a unified cultural identity. Frankly, foreign and non-White cultures are a threat to a unified cultural identity because including them would force people to see beyond their noses and face the potential backlash from past wrongs wrought by the dominant culture.
Identity is easier to define than culture. To have a substantial Caucasian background is what generally defines a White identity. Culture is more defined by what country you're from. In America, a person who identifies as White is someone with a Caucasian background, which is the dominant ethnic group and has achieved a certain degree of homogeneity.
The American identity is a national identity and while its also a culture it isn't an ethnic identity. It touches the lives of all who live in the US yet in a different way depending on ethnicity and other factors, such as wealth and where you live.
Black and Native American identity and culture, like their White counterparts, is first defined along ethnic lines and additionally have the onerous distinction of being marred by the brush of repeated government sponsored victimhood.
They're not really seen as being important parts of American culture. If they weren't major contributors to US heritage then I could understand why they are treated like divergent cultures that have niches in society(like reservations or urban hellholes) but not important roles to play.
Let me put it another way. If you were visiting the US from anywhere other than the Americas, would you recognize Black or Native American identity or culture as particularly important to the national identity? No, because you would see mostly White faces on TV and in movies, White authors lining the shelves of book stores, and White politicians in most seats of government. Unless you go looking for it you will not find evidence of acknowledgement or celebration of non-White cultures.
Cultural appropriation is so pervasive that I'm not surprised someone would ask this. The most common example of it seems to be a White person wearing a Native American ceremonial headdress or one of those obnoxious rasta hats with the attached dreadlocks merely because it looks cool. Heck, Katy Perry and Selena Gomez have both recently been publically blasted for tidbiting from different cultures simply because they like the look of them.
I'm not saying that everyone who does this sort of thing is a bad person. You can borrow from other cultures but you must do so with awareness and sensitivity. I don't know about anyone else but I'd feel weird about wearing a tallit or a hijab. Not because they're from other cultures but because I understand what they mean to their respective cultures. I guess what I'm saying is that there needs to be an exchange rather than merely a one sided grabfest and that is not happening in American culture.
Cultural appropriation could have its own thread and anyone else is free to start one.
Ethnic stereotypes. I really thought that was pretty obvious. They still exist and are still affecting people's actions and attitudes. Just because your neighbor is Chinese and really great doesn't stop you from equating them with the cat-eating, Fu Manchu stereotype and treating them subtly different because of it.
Clarify the difference?
Elaborate?
So, in other words, "all white people are the same"?
So what separates the national identity from the cultural identity?
Further, what does it mean to have a black identity or a Native American identity versus a white identity?
Ok, why and in what way?
Also, are you lumping race and culture as being the same thing? Are all black people the same culture?
Elaborate?
You still haven't actually clarified the relationship between what you mean by national identity, cultural identity, and racial identity.
Maybe you should define what you mean by the term.
Why are white people wearing things from other cultures a problem?
Also pretty positive Selena Gomez isn't white, unless I'm missing something.
Seems like you were. Clarify the difference?
In what way is it a one-sided grabfest?
It's evident you think a lot of things are pretty obvious.
However, I'm asking you to apply concrete definitions to things. That way, we have a coherent argument and not a bunch of vague claims.
To what extent, and how prevalent are these stereotypes, and how problematic are they?
Culture and identity is one of my areas of specialization, you may want to read Invisible Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania. Considering you're own personal history and relative proximity to that state may have some interest in it. It talks about how Native Americans have adapted to modern life and became "Invisible" through intervening years, much like your own family being part Indian and then gradually becoming more Africanized each passing generation. But it brings up an interesting point about the living historians who like to dress up and live like Indians, and those who are of actual descent. Which is a particular point really how each one views the other, and gets to a point about "what does it mean to be an Indian."
A part of black culture has also slipped into white culture, as well as other parts and pieces. This homogeneity also extends to certain American Indians and African Americans as well. Third generation drift is very strong.
They also had sex with white people and made babies. If you study Mexico you'll see a large shift with intermarriage creating what's called a "Mestizofication" of the national population. Intermarriage among settlers and Indians throughout time has been high, to the point that some tribes are, carrying a lot of white features and cultural identity. Granted there's a borrowing from the Plains Indians to seed a culture, however as the original culture through the extermination and Indians Wars but also just because people were lazy or fear retribution.
The unique case for the black identity in the creation of a partial white and black identity is something that is often regional and rather complicated. As some were forced power structure abuses, while others such as Chevalier de Saint-George who was so loved by his father that he took his black mistress and son to France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevalier_de_Saint-George
He was called the Black Mozart, and there's strong evidence that Mozard did copy at least once piece from him. He fought in the French Revolution, and on and on. Whereas you can compare that to say the experience in other areas for such people in Port Towns and ect. There are some works on them, but it's been over twenty years since I've read them that I can't source it.
The problem is also that Pan Africanism had some issues trying to import made up holidays like Kwanzaa or certain elements like the Nation of Islam trying to build a myth around the lost Shabazz tribe. I'm not at all really surprised by this failure, even in my own life time. What I have often thought is that to push forward means to understand that certain roots aren't coming back.
You have to understand for those of us that aren't in the predicament of severance, yes we're able to rely on what "our parents created" but also that the creative destruction process means we must also forge our own identities. My children are bi-racial, they will have to come to their own identity to embrace what aspects of what we teach them. But as my father once told me, "You can't be me, you will never experience the world as I do. Find your own path, take what we taught you and pass on what you love."
An older gentlemen in my neighborhood whom I often spoke with also told me often to establish my own identity and others will follow if you are naturally strong. As I've grown, I've found that the generation of thoughts and ideas, whether you want to call them memetics or entrepreneurialism or whatever, means that we must create our own identity and then share that identity. Part of that is through consumerism, granted my own "identity" isn't mass produced such as say Taylor Swift or Beyonce Knowles. Which nothing wrong with mass branding if you stand for a quality work.
However, this is where the point about capital and differentiation oneself through self expression to help generate over time a cultural identity by sharing that and having people copy it. It takes a lot of time, and there's this sense in some of these communities about their own identity and lost culture. However, this has also happened in some white cultures that were oppressed and had their own language and became homogenized. You see this with the Welsh in England, it was passe to speak Welsh. However, as time has went on the renewed interest in a self identity with youngsters has rekindled that lost language and a renewal in culture.
I can see where people like Charles L. Blockson have scoured the world to bring back artifacts and works to the States since his teacher told him there was no such thing as black history. But I have to look at people like Ralph Ellison who took the black identity and made a touch stone piece in Invisible Man. But the identity as "invisible" is an identity in and of itself, where you have to begin to put together an actual identity and make it applicable.
Certain tribes have done quite well, and frankly I disagree with you on the lack of expression for the Native American experience. The culture is rebuilding itself, but will take hundreds of years to reach a lot of prominence. It is relevant globally, and valued locally. The problem is a lack of Bollywood or "Mecca" source that produces rapidly high quality products. With the increasingly decentralized nature of movie making, we must also contend that Atlanta is becoming a major places for film making as well as lower budget yet effect workers like Tyler Perry are helping to generate a culture. I just wish there were more so that there's more variety, but this will take more time. But the wealth and a middle class are there along with consumers globally.
However, I have serious reservations about certain culturally expropriated themes and styles from the cities and these symbols and usages need to be entwined more into a better message that is much more pro-family and pro-community.
Living historians and the like are actually rather helpful to spread cultural symbols, this is why you see black people wearing jeans and don't see white people wearing rasta hats. However, with consumerism the feedback loop by taking some white styles of dress then turning them around and rebranding them and placing them into stores has already occurred, too.
One must also look at cultural oddballs like Eminem, a white rapper. When he started he was a bit random, today he is mainstream. Men like him make for themselves their own identity and make others follow. I do not like his art, I see it as atrocious. However, I find he has honor based on where he came from and how he grew. This is where individuality makes the difference.
And we also have to be less sensitive, there's Piss Christ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
After a while, Christians don't care but Muslims want to hunt down some Swedish cartoonist a decade later. At some point, you need to over yourself and realize that someone is going to exploit you commercially. Which is why you need to have a good brand and people out there being a good witness to the culture itself.
I see you brought up Selena Gomez and the like, yet you have some syncretists like Shakira. Looking at her wikipedia page, she's Lebanese, Spanish, and Italian. Is the reason why we don't see her as a problem, or is it that she's a minority and part majority? I don't see how people like my own children can get away with being "ethnic yet not" because of blood purity, no similar than Mrs. Ripoll if she was a pure Spaniard.
That something is "stolen" or "cheapened," then well we have to consider Cowboy Troy and Eminem to be equally evil.
Here's Cowboy Troy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUPK9z59yUc
Here's Eminem (NSFW)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wYNFfgrXTI
After a while, I don't have a problem with either really, it doesn't affect my daily life. No it doesn't, nor do you see them denigrating a culture they're creating their own culture. I don't believe in them, but they're not hurting people and actually may what comes later be more appropriate. When you consider Russian underground rap, is that denigrating and exploiting American culture? Hardly, but it certainly is strange and can be construed as out of context for, well Russians.
I've been discriminated through out my life always, even when I'm with my children I get to hear "speak English, this is America" from time to time when I'm trying to scold them without publicly humiliating them in front of others as one example.
However, we also help to create these stereotypes and it's people like the Eminems and Cowboy Troys that get rid of sanctified solipsism on symbols. If some half-Mexican, half-Italian girl wants to do something similar to Bollywood what's to stop her? If you don't want it commercialized then don't bloody commercialize it yourself.
Don't sell crosses, because you know you will have someone dunk it in a bucket of piss with the hyper creative name Piss Christ.
Don't share it, if you want it to be special among your own kind. The Amish have bastardized version of Pennsylvania German that in part is meant to keep outsiders out. With the other Pensylvania Dutch having committed cultural suicide by not passing along their own culture and allowing the Amish to have their own monopoly of it.
But what we must consider also in the example of the Amish is that they were marketed as a reaction of Germans in the US trying to avoid discrimination, by homogenizing and not passing on language and so forth but also by using the Amish as icons. The Amish have since fully exploited this to their own benefit, but it came as a sacrifice for non Amish Pensylvania Dutch culture.
So while you have people like Charles M. Blockson at Temple University that spent their lives looking for a national identity by going abroad, there were others that allowed their own culture to commit suicide. Which I find this cultural suicide a far greater anathema than anything. So is it better to kill your own culture, or to have it killed for you? As it seems to not just be an Indian or Black thing, it's also uniquely white thing as well as a cost of that homogenization.
Frankly, white Hispanic would be the proper term, fully Mexican-Italian-American. Still, she's a white chick that can speak English well and grew up in the States. Arabs are considered white under the American census, so Shakira Ripoll under American citizenship would be a white chick. The only ones who seem to get away with that are people like Barack Obama who self identify as black on the census but consider black to be multi-ethnic no similar than Halle Berry.
Here's Halle Berry with her mother:
http://www.posh24.com/photo/1516784/halle_berry_with_her_mother_ju
Barack Obama with his mother:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-44th-president-was-his-mothers-son/2012/05/11/gIQA6NV1IU_story.html
They're descended from white chicks, therefore it is proper to call them both black and white dude and chick respectively? No we acknowledge what they self identify as but also allow them credence when they decide to talk about their Irish heritage in Ireland like Obama did a few years ago.
From an outside perspective I often pull in this interesting article with black and white twins. Meaning that their father or mother was part white yet expressed black features and the other spouse was white, and one of the twins had predominantly African features while the other showed predominantly European features. I found their experience to be very intriguing:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/sep/24/twins-black-white
I've found it quite interesting in dealing with identity on how people like Chevalier de Saint-George dealt with their identity as compared to Frederick Douglas whose father was white. Both slave born, one's father raised him as a noble the other allowed his son to live as a slave. Which goes back to individual decisions making a difference.
Saint-George had a large impact on classical music and inspired a Mozart piece, rather it was completely ripped off but I digress. Equally he fought during the French Revolution. He knew Mary Antoinette personally and on and on. Whereas Frederick Douglas rose to great prominence as a political leader and a significant impact on black culture and American culture at the same time.
Which also one must ask if you have to be "part something" to embrace that culture, or can you appreciate the culture and move onto other projects as an artist? Can't a person be a "white chick" but also Hispanic?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
1a. Why or why not?
Yes. Although I think what you are describing is a characteristic that you will find throughout humanity. Xenophobia is NORMAL. People are instinctively scared of the different and the unknown. Discomfort with other cultures is just a symptom of that fundamental characteristic of our species. That isn't to say it should be encouraged or accepted, just that it should probably be expected if we are being realistic.
If anything I think you would actually find the US to be a relatively tolerant place if you compared it to the world as a whole.
2. Should the dominant cultural block be able to dictate the cultural norms to all Americans?
2a. Furthermore, should they be able to use popular culture and news outlets to do this?
No...but it is natural that the dominant cultural block will inherently impose some of its values/norms on the others due to sheer numbers/exposure. But if you look at the US legal system I think you will find that it does a relatively good job of protecting minority rights/cultures.
3. Is a homogeneous culture more healthy for an established nation than a multicultural one?
IDK, it probably depends on how you define "healthy" when it comes to describing a nation. Personally I would prefer to live in the multicultural place, but I can see the more homogenous society potentially being more efficient.
4. Is it possible to create a homogeneous culture from a nation formed out of many ethnicities and cultures?
4a. Furthermore, is there a way to do this besides violence?
Sure, with enough pressure you can get uniformity. And that pressure could probably be non-violent if the conditions were right.
I'm pretty sure the "many" is the 13 colonies, and the "one" is the United States. I don't think it's intended to refer to cultural fusion.
I agree that that's the primary meaning, but I'll point out that there was a streak of what we'd today call pluralism in the Founders' thinking. Now, of course, the "many" in their minds would have been predominantly English, Scots, Irish, and Dutch of various backgrounds and Christian sects, rather than immigrants from every nation and religion on the planet. But we see a broader pluralism in some of the things they wrote about Jews and Muslims when they really thought deeply about their principles of religious freedom - the Treaty of Tripoli is an oft-cited example here - as well as their wildly inconsistent but sometimes-actually-decent treatment of black Americans. Let us set aside the slaveowners among them for evil bastards. But when a man like John Adams says that he wants to see the black people emancipated and provided educations, he seems to be envisioning a future where they aren't just set free and shipped away to Africa, as some later abolitionists (including Lincoln) would advocate, but invited to participate as equals in American society.
And it must be remembered that, to a very limited degree, this was already happening in the North. It wasn't just English, Scots, Irish, and Dutch, after all; some free blacks, like Agrippa Hull, did all right by themselves and their community. (But see Hull's story also for an example of Thomas Jefferson being an especially evil bastard.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.