![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I see racial stuff come up all the time, here and in the news. Thing is, people act like the "lines" between the races are all clear and crisp. Black is black, latino is latino, asian is asian, white is white, right? Wrong!!
Let's look at some examples: a classic one is the multigeneration "african-american". "Black", right? Ummmm, no. Most likely to be mixed black, white, and even native american. Unless that person can trace all of their ancestors cleanly to the slave ships, with no white master taking liberties, or NA slaves in the mix, they're not pure 'black' - more like a heinz 57.
Then we have latino: spanish? some; indian? some; other southern european? maybe. Again, you can't tell the mix from appearances, either.
How about asian? With all of the history of raids and invasions in the asian countries - which "asian" is the real thing? None? Most asians, like most whites, who have a minority (defined as "anything not the dominant ethnic group where the ancestor comes from") in their bloodline, don't talk about it.
So the color theory of racial integrity is straight out, and very bogus when you're talking american born people, and those from other melting pot areas. The race is "human", folks.
So we get to ethnicity. Some days ethnicity seems to be race myths dressed up in fancy dress. Other days, it's a way to describe the genetic precursors to an individual: their ancestry, if you will. So my ethnicity isn't "white" - it's Danish, German, English, Irish, Welsh and French, in various levels. Does it have other stuff, like NA or jewish? I don't know, but it's possible. Do I have the "right" to enjoy and practice the cultures of all the ethnic inclusions I know of? I sure as hell think so!
So my "black" friends could just as easily be German, English, Scottish, Welsh, South African, and Nigerian. Do they have the same "right" to enjoy all of the cultures of their ancestry? Hell yes!
So then we come to the "american" cultures - and they all seem to base themselves off of skin tone.
So a guy who is, say, half German, half Nigerian, would be expected to act "black", talk "black", listen to rap and dress ghetto. Dumb. He may well be bilingual in German and English, dress in a button down suit or ironed jeans, and listen to Bach and QueensRyche.
A woman who was mostly european, with a little black, might be expected to dress like a yuppie and listen to teen pop, but instead really find resonance in R&B and Rap and delight in african tribal print dresses.
Are they wrong? I don't think so.
Maybe we should start looking at our cultures and subcultures, and who "belongs" in them, in other terms than just the nominal color of someone's skin, and our assumptions about "race".
Disagree? OK, but keep it polite, or I reserve the right to roast your ass. I'm in a mood.
Let's look at some examples: a classic one is the multigeneration "african-american". "Black", right? Ummmm, no. Most likely to be mixed black, white, and even native american. Unless that person can trace all of their ancestors cleanly to the slave ships, with no white master taking liberties, or NA slaves in the mix, they're not pure 'black' - more like a heinz 57.
Then we have latino: spanish? some; indian? some; other southern european? maybe. Again, you can't tell the mix from appearances, either.
How about asian? With all of the history of raids and invasions in the asian countries - which "asian" is the real thing? None? Most asians, like most whites, who have a minority (defined as "anything not the dominant ethnic group where the ancestor comes from") in their bloodline, don't talk about it.
So the color theory of racial integrity is straight out, and very bogus when you're talking american born people, and those from other melting pot areas. The race is "human", folks.
So we get to ethnicity. Some days ethnicity seems to be race myths dressed up in fancy dress. Other days, it's a way to describe the genetic precursors to an individual: their ancestry, if you will. So my ethnicity isn't "white" - it's Danish, German, English, Irish, Welsh and French, in various levels. Does it have other stuff, like NA or jewish? I don't know, but it's possible. Do I have the "right" to enjoy and practice the cultures of all the ethnic inclusions I know of? I sure as hell think so!
So my "black" friends could just as easily be German, English, Scottish, Welsh, South African, and Nigerian. Do they have the same "right" to enjoy all of the cultures of their ancestry? Hell yes!
So then we come to the "american" cultures - and they all seem to base themselves off of skin tone.
So a guy who is, say, half German, half Nigerian, would be expected to act "black", talk "black", listen to rap and dress ghetto. Dumb. He may well be bilingual in German and English, dress in a button down suit or ironed jeans, and listen to Bach and QueensRyche.
A woman who was mostly european, with a little black, might be expected to dress like a yuppie and listen to teen pop, but instead really find resonance in R&B and Rap and delight in african tribal print dresses.
Are they wrong? I don't think so.
Maybe we should start looking at our cultures and subcultures, and who "belongs" in them, in other terms than just the nominal color of someone's skin, and our assumptions about "race".
Disagree? OK, but keep it polite, or I reserve the right to roast your ass. I'm in a mood.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
It didn't match any grouping as large as a race. "Han" is an ethnicity - I forget which Asian nationality they come from, but it isn't the whole nation. _Asian_ is not. Asian-American might be, barely, considered an "ethnicity", but only if you are dealing with people so far from their roots that this level of generality is as specific as they can get.
Thus you have "ethnic Russians" _and others_ in various of the fragments of the once USSR. In this case, the contrast is with citizens/residents of the territory known as Russia. Ancestry and genetics are only the point to the extent that they contribute to one's cultural traits and identification. What your family disowns and honestly forgets, doesn't count.
That's the usage I learned, of course, and not the usage I've observed in the USA, where there's such a giant cultural problem about race that they can't even find terms for smaller or different groupings, without trying to pervert them as new improved ways to refer to their national obsession.