# Across America, Latino Community Sighs With Relief



## Big Don (Jan 12, 2011)

*Across America, Latino Community Sighs With Relief*

by Daisy Hernandez NPR EXCERPT:
January 12, 2011

                     I  wasn't the only person on Saturday who rushed to her Android when news  came of the Tucson shooting. I wasn't looking however to read about what  had happened. My auntie had already filled me in &#8212;  "Someone tried to  murder _una representante._ People have been killed," she'd reported. What I wanted to know was the killer's surname. 

 My eyes scanned the mobile papers. I held my breath. Finally, I saw it: Jared Loughner. Not a Ramirez, Gonzalez or Garcia.
                     It's  safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson  killer turned out to be a gringo. Had the shooter been Latino, media  pundits wouldn't be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young  man this week &#8212; they'd be demanding an even more stringent  anti-immigrant policy. The new members of the House would be stepping  over each other to propose new legislation for more guns on the border,  more mothers to be deported, and more employers to be penalized for  hiring brown people. Obama would be attending funerals and telling the  nation tonight that he was going to increase security just about  everywhere.
<<<SNIP>>>
 As  Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Ariz., told reporters: "The  anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting  to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the  capital."                     I admit sadly that it was only  after I saw the shooter's gringo surname that I  was able to go on and  read the rest of the news
END EXCERPT


> The  anger, the hatred, the bigotry





> It's  safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson  killer turned out to be a gringo.


Yep, it is a good thing there was no bigotry...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 13, 2011)

I want to actually play into this a little bit, as I think it is telling, at least about this person's belief. 

Gringo, as defined by Dictionary.com is "a foreigner, esp. one of U.S. or British descent."

Now why would an U.S. citizen, living in the United States, call another citizen and resident of the same country, but different ethnic background, a foreigner? is it possibly because she doesn't think that he "belongs" here?

What's funny is that she is allowed to use what is an obstensibly pejorative while writing and working for NPR, while Juan Williams, who expressed a personal belief about Muslims which he stated was emotional, not necessarily rational, gets fired.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 13, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I want to actually play into this a little bit, as I think it is telling, at least about this person's belief.
> 
> Gringo, as defined by Dictionary.com is "a foreigner, esp. one of U.S. or British descent."
> 
> ...


$20 says she doesn't get fired for this.


----------



## granfire (Jan 13, 2011)

erm, isn't Arizona where the folks with roots south of the border are enemy number 1 at the moment, with all the new laws and stuff?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 13, 2011)

granfire said:


> erm, isn't Arizona where the folks with roots south of the border are enemy number 1 at the moment, with all the new laws and stuff?


 
No, not at all.  What makes you say that?

Or is it just because they want the Federal government to enforce the immigration laws to keep out illegal aliens that they are supposedly classifying "folks with roots south of the border enemy number 1".


----------



## Carol (Jan 13, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I want to actually play into this a little bit, as I think it is telling, at least about this person's belief.
> 
> Gringo, as defined by Dictionary.com is "a foreigner, esp. one of U.S. or British descent."
> 
> ...



Is calling Latinos "brown" a racist statement?  People of Hispanic or Latino origin can be blond haird blue eyed (such as actor Emilio Esteves) or black (such as Olympian Marion Jones) or a mix of colors in the middle.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 13, 2011)

Carol said:


> Is calling Latinos "brown" a racist statement?  People of Hispanic or Latino origin can be blond haird blue eyed (such as actor Emilio Esteves) or black (such as Olympian Marion Jones) or a mix of colors in the middle.


Just like all African Americans are not black, meet Trevor






. Meet Paulo. Rejoice in the tolerance they experienced.


----------



## Carol (Jan 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Just like all African Americans are not black, meet Trevor.  Meet Paulo. Rejoice in the tolerance they experienced.



I'll see your two and raise you two. 

Need a highbeam subscription to read the entire article, but I think you can get the thrust of the article from the free previews they provide.  This went down when I was in college.  



> State Sen.  Bill Owens and several black community health leaders  yesterday called for the removal of the new medical director of Boston City Hospital, saying that despite Dr. Michael Eliastam's longtime activism on behalf of black and poor people, *his being white and South African-born makes him unfit for the job*.




http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7644666.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7643756.html

Boston City Hospital (BCH), is located in a historically black  neighborhood.  It can be compared to Charity Hospital in New Orleans --  the hospital who will treat everyone regardless of their insurance or  ability to pay. 

The controversy ended with Dr. Eliastam stepping down from the post. 

Boston City Hospital as a charity hospital closed in 1996, merging with Boston University to create a teaching hospital.   Dr. Eliastam practiced in Boston for a good 12 years longer, then returned to South Africa to chief a hospital in Johannesberg.

http://www.southafrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/health/update/donaldgordon.htm


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 13, 2011)

Carol said:


> Is calling Latinos "brown" a racist statement?  People of Hispanic or Latino origin can be blond haird blue eyed (such as actor Emilio Esteves) or black (such as Olympian Marion Jones) or a mix of colors in the middle.



Depends on who's being asked the question, I guess. 

I'll actually do you one better.  Classify to me who is actually a "Latino".  Are Latinos those that speak a Latin based language?  If so, that would include the Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italians, Romanians, etc.  Ethnically speaking, I don't thing Mexicans have anything to do with these people.  

Or should we term Mexican's as Hispanic, though they have no geographic ties to Hispania, which include Spain, or more completely, the Iberian Peninsula.  

To some extent, "brown" would be a more accurate characteristic as a group then either of the above examples.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Just like all African Americans are not black, meet Trevor
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wouldn't that be a South African American?
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Jan 13, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Wouldn't that be a South African American?
> Sean


Do we specify which state of Mexico Mexican Americans come from? No.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 13, 2011)

"Thank God this lunatic wasn't one of us, we might all be collectively blamed."

"BIGOTRY!"

WTF?  The actions of people posting _in this very thread _holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of some of them during the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy demonstrates that this woman was absolutely justified in her worry.  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.  Do I really need to start digging up posts and shoving your hypocrisy in your faces?


----------



## granfire (Jan 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Do we specify which state of Mexico Mexican Americans come from? No.



Like Guatemala?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 13, 2011)

granfire said:


> Like Guatemala?


No, Guatemala is a country, I said states, like Oaxaca, Sonora, Durango, etc.
Note that African American refers to a CONTINENT, while Mexican American refers to a nationality, there is a difference, the only nation that IS a continent, or continent that is a nation, is Australia...


----------



## Big Don (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> "Thank God this lunatic wasn't one of us, we might all be collectively blamed."
> 
> "BIGOTRY!"
> 
> WTF?  The actions of people posting _in this very thread _holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of some of them during the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy demonstrates that this woman was absolutely justified in her worry.  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.  Do I really need to start digging up posts and shoving your hypocrisy in your faces?


Did you miss the part of the article where the author uses a racial slur? Or are racial slurs OK for some people to use?


----------



## granfire (Jan 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> No, Guatemala is a country, I said states, like Oaxaca, Sonora, Durango, etc.
> Note that African American refers to a CONTINENT, while Mexican American refers to a nationality, there is a difference, the only nation that IS a continent, or continent that is a nation, is Australia...



^_^ yes, I was being a smart alec.

because oh so many 'Mexicans' come from far further down the road. But hey, they are short, dark skinned and speak Spanish, it's all good, right! <heavy sarcasm>

But seriously, didn't the past year bring a lot of polarization in regard of that segment of the population? (and yes, worded with care)


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Did you miss the part of the article where the author uses a racial slur? Or are racial slurs OK for some people to use?



Gringo is not a racial slur, since it does not refer to a race.  It is more similar to "goy", "gaijin", or "gwailo" and essentially means "outsider".  Whether or not it is used as a slur is going to depend a lot on context and intent.  I could make "Californian" into a slur if I wanted to.  It has no similarity to words like "******" or "kike" since those words through long consistent usage are only thought of as slurs.


----------



## billc (Jan 13, 2011)

Generally speaking there is not "anti-immigration" policy here in the states.  There is an anit-"illegal"-immigration policy here in the states, which is of course ignored by the pro-"illegal" vs. pro-"legal" immigration crowd.

I have to say that discrimination against muslims in this country is by far non-existent.  The ground zero mosque was no different than when catholic nuns tried to built a convent near a nazi death camp in part to pray for the victims lost at the camp.  There was anger about this and the pope told the nuns they needed to move their site.  The attempt to build the mosque by a man with a shady background, shady funding and with their being a history of mosque building at the sight of "muslim victories" was causing concern, especially among the victims of muslim terrorists.  As much as you want to deny the muslim part, they were muslims, not eco-terrorists, or swedish terrorists.  At the same time, there have been no violent protests about the mosque, just discussion.   There have been no attacks on muslims because of the mosque, just debate.  If you look at the reaction of muslims around the world at percieved slights to their religion versus an actual attack by muslim terrorists that killed 3000 American and foriegn visitors to this country, there is no basis for claims of discrimination or bias against muslims.  Let's be fair and think about the reality of the situation.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to say that discrimination against muslims in this country is by far non-existent.


 

Ri-ght

And you do remember this guy, dontcha?


By 09/25/01 three weeks after the attack, there were *many* assaults on Muslims in the U.S. In addition, Sikhs were targeted because some were mistaken for Muslims. Hispanic-Americans were harassed, presumably because of their skin color. One Egyptian Copt was murdered. Even members of the Baha'i Faith were harassed. It is ironic that Baha'is are themselves viciously persecuted in Iran, and Copts-_Christians_-are oppressed in Egypt. 


And this guy wasn't even Muslim-they just thought he was:

[yt]EwaNRWMN-F4p[/yt]


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Depends on who's being asked the question, I guess.
> 
> I'll actually do you one better.  Classify to me who is actually a "Latino".


I don't have much of an opinion on this thread one way or the other.  I think it's making a mountain out of a molehill.

But if this is a serious question, I have a couple of employees who are Puerto Rican and this topic actually came up.  According to them, there is a strict definition of Latino/Latina and then a common use definition.  Strictly speaking, latino refers to someone from a Latin American country.  Technically, then everyone from South America, the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico would be latino.  Spaniards, Italians, etc are not.

Commonly, though, according to these guys, in a broader sense, it's typically limited to spanish speaking people from latin america, which would exclude Brazilians and most of the Caribbean.


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Generally speaking there is not "anti-immigration" policy here in the states.  There is an anit-"illegal"-immigration policy here in the states, which is of course ignored by the pro-"illegal" vs. pro-"legal" immigration crowd.
> 
> I have to say that discrimination against muslims in this country is by far non-existent.  The ground zero mosque was no different than when catholic nuns tried to built a convent near a nazi death camp in part to pray for the victims lost at the camp.  There was anger about this and the pope told the nuns they needed to move their site.  The attempt to build the mosque by a man with a shady background, shady funding and with their being a history of mosque building at the sight of "muslim victories" was causing concern, especially among the victims of muslim terrorists.  As much as you want to deny the muslim part, they were muslims, not eco-terrorists, or swedish terrorists.  At the same time, there have been no violent protests about the mosque, just discussion.   There have been no attacks on muslims because of the mosque, just debate.  If you look at the reaction of muslims around the world at percieved slights to their religion versus an actual attack by muslim terrorists that killed 3000 American and foriegn visitors to this country, there is no basis for claims of discrimination or bias against muslims.  Let's be fair and think about the reality of the situation.


If you fail to staff and fund the division of homeland security that handles immigration, in a very passive/aggressive, bitchy way you have instituted an "anti-immigration" policy.  I hate to say it, but in many ways my government has a lot in common with my mother in law.  Just sayin'.   

Reminds me of how I tell my son that by consistently failing to do his homework, he is intentionally striving to get poor grades.  It's very predictable.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> *Across America, Latino Community Sighs With Relief*
> 
> by Daisy Hernandez NPR EXCERPT:
> January 12, 2011
> ...



Worst thing about it is that they have a reason for that sigh. Want proof? Look at this forum for petes sake. Someone it seems is always bitching about illegal immigrants. what do u think people who arent on this forum would say if he was a ramirez (not the ramirez on mt)


----------



## billc (Jan 13, 2011)

First, what part of ILLEGAL immigration do you not see when we type it.  If the citizens of mexico followed our laws and paid the fees to come here, they would be "golden."  No problem.  THe illegal part is a real hang up because they are cutting in line in front of people who acually are taking the time to come here legally.  If they become citizens legally, they are Americans, no ifs ands or buts.  


Elder 999, out of a country of over 300 million people, the examples of seething anti-islamic bigotry are:

"many"

some sihks are harrassed.

one man, a  sihk, was murdered.

Some coptic egyptian were harrassed.

If you want some actual examples,

50 christians murdered when a bomb detonates outside their church in iraq
another bomb kills coptic christians in Egypt, coptic egyptians are being persecuted with no protection from the government.
over 3000 americans and foreign visitors are slaughtered
U.S.S. Cole is bombed
Kobar towers is bombed
2 embassies in africa are bombed
Mumbai is attacked, lots of people killed

This is a list I would expect if there was seething anti-islamic bigotry in AMerica.

How many people were murdered during the riots against "draw Mohammed day."  The call to draw pictures of Mohammed killed more people than your entire list.

Americans, because of the past racial problems, know the difference between a non-terrorist muslim and the terrorists.  the level of violence against muslims in this country is as I typed, virtually non-existant for a country of 300 million people who had well over 3000 citizens slaughtered by muslim terrorists.

Another example you might expect from a biggoted country, "Director Theo Van Gogh, shot and stabbed to death walking down the street because he made a film critical of the muslim treatment of muslim women.

Or, Non-muslim french women are putting on the muslim head covering to keep from being harrassed by muslim men, who hurl vulgar names at them and threaten them because they are not wearing head coverings.

Or, western peace activists women are being raped and forced into marrying muslim men and then held against their will.  (I think that was your post Big Don, Thanks)

This is the kind of evidence I would like to see of the seething anti-muslim bigotry in the United States.  You won't find it.  Even with the mosque at ground zero,  NO RIOTS, NO MURDER, NO BOMBING JUST DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.  Try building a catholic church in any muslim dictatorship and see if the same would be said.  America is one of the most tolerant countries in the world and does not deserve the attacks it recieves.
Thanks Elder 999, nice to talk to you again.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Elder 999, out of a country of over 300 million people, the examples of seething anti-islamic bigotry are:
> .


 

Quite a bit more than:



billcihak said:


> I have to say that discrimination against muslims in this country *is by far non-existent*.


 
[yt]G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/yt]

 :lfao:


----------



## billc (Jan 13, 2011)

Oh, did that guy actually burn the Korans, no.  Also, Michelle Malkin reports that 800 people were injured, and 130 killed over "Draw mohammed day."  And the woman who set up the day had to disapear for fear of her life.  Also, Three people were murdered when they tried to show winnie the pooh, over the character piglet.

Or, you could show how homosexuals are stoned to death, or female rape victims are punished as adulteresses.

the various news services had to censor the images of the dancing in the street that commenced on word that 3000 americans had died.

America is an amazing country.  Anywhere else, and after 9/11 there would have been riots and murder.  Here, we debate and discuss.  I love this country.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jan 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I don't have much of an opinion on this thread one way or the other. I think it's making a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> But if this is a serious question, I have a couple of employees who are Puerto Rican and this topic actually came up. According to them, there is a strict definition of Latino/Latina and then a common use definition. Strictly speaking, latino refers to someone from a Latin American country. Technically, then everyone from South America, the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico would be latino. Spaniards, Italians, etc are not.
> 
> Commonly, though, according to these guys, in a broader sense, it's typically limited to spanish speaking people from latin america, which would exclude Brazilians and most of the Caribbean.


 Correct, people with roots to Latin America are both latino/a and hispanic while Spaniards are only hispanic.


----------



## Carol (Jan 13, 2011)

James Kovacich said:


> Correct, people with roots to Latin America are both latino/a and hispanic while Spaniards are only hispanic.



Just a bit of trivia -- the Federal govt. has migrated to using "Hispanic or Latino" as an EEO descriptor instead of just one or the other.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I don't have much of an opinion on this thread one way or the other. I think it's making a mountain out of a molehill.
> 
> But if this is a serious question, I have a couple of employees who are Puerto Rican and this topic actually came up. According to them, there is a strict definition of Latino/Latina and then a common use definition. Strictly speaking, latino refers to someone from a Latin American country. Technically, then everyone from South America, the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico would be latino. Spaniards, Italians, etc are not.
> 
> Commonly, though, according to these guys, in a broader sense, it's typically limited to spanish speaking people from latin america, which would exclude Brazilians and most of the Caribbean.


 
I know there is a common usage versus a technical usage.  I just think that it's funny in some respects, devisive in another, and down-right idiotic in another.  

For instance, I don't like being called an African-American.  I think it's merely an attempt by various portions of the population to show me as being "different" then others, and different people do it for different reasons.  

When I was younger, I actually say a guy with a Mexican guy with a shirt that said something along the lines of Hispanics are from Spain, Latinos are from Europe, I am a Mexican.



> Correct, people with roots to Latin America are both latino/a and hispanic while Spaniards are only hispanic.


 
But people in "Latin American" countries (ethnic natives, that is) have nothing to do with Spain or "Latin" countries.  It is an importation from ~400 years ago.  Both the terms Hispanic and Latin have to do with European natinos, not South American ones.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Do we specify which state of Mexico Mexican Americans come from? No.


 
Yea, but South Africa is an actual country, not a State in Africa.  So he would actually be correct in saying South African - American.  Just like Guatemalen - American.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> "Thank God this lunatic wasn't one of us, we might all be collectively blamed."
> 
> "BIGOTRY!"
> 
> WTF? The actions of people posting _in this very thread _holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of some of them during the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy demonstrates that this woman was absolutely justified in her worry. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Do I really need to start digging up posts and shoving your hypocrisy in your faces?


 
But if we also follow your line of reasoning, then just because their may be some minority of individuals who will cause crimes against Hispanics for this, or because some minority of individuals may "blame" Hispanics as a whole for this incident, does not justify stereotyping the response of over 300 Million American.

Therefore her reaction would be just as bad as those you are decrying for blaming Muslims.



Blade96 said:


> Worst thing about it is that they have a reason for that sigh. Want proof? Look at this forum for petes sake. Someone it seems is always bitching about illegal immigrants. what do u think people who arent on this forum would say if he was a ramirez (not the ramirez on mt)


 
Nothing, if he was a legal citizen of this country. Although you might hear something if he was the child of illegal immigrants, ie. an anchor baby.


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I know there is a common usage versus a technical usage.  I just think that it's funny in some respects, devisive in another, and down-right idiotic in another.
> 
> For instance, I don't like being called an African-American.  I think it's merely an attempt by various portions of the population to show me as being "different" then others, and different people do it for different reasons.
> 
> ...



What the heck are you talking about?  It wouldn't be so ridiculous if we didn't have little italy in so many cities, it irish pubs.  I actually saw a white dude wear a tsgirt that said, "kiss me, i'm irish."  Can you believe that guy?  He didn't even have a good fake leprachaun accent.

You act like its only the latinos who are proud of theirgenetic heritage.   Im guilty of being proud of my norwegian heritage.   My two year old goes head first into.everything and I've said jokingly that she's a little biking in training.  I didn't realize I was breaking an unwritten rule.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 13, 2011)

Sorry but regardless of their skin colour, their religion, their ancestry and provided they are a citizen of your country.arent theyjust Americans?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 14, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Sorry but regardless of their skin colour, their religion, their ancestry and provided they are a citizen of your country.arent theyjust Americans?


Ideally, that is true. But, the thing is, lots of people are more interested in being "special" than in being American. 



> We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country.  Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American  at all.


 Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Steve (Jan 14, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Sorry but regardless of their skin colour, their religion, their ancestry and provided they are a citizen of your country.arent theyjust Americans?



Regardless of akin color, very few people in america are just american.  That was my point.  The double standard os that white people don't think that when they put a swedish flag on their car that it counts.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 14, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Regardless of akin color, very few people in america are just american.  That was my point.  The double standard os that white people don't think that when they put a swedish flag on their car that it counts.


Yeah, because white people aren't allowed to be proud of their heritage without that notorious little four letter "N" word coming out...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 14, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> What the heck are you talking about? It wouldn't be so ridiculous if we didn't have little italy in so many cities, it irish pubs. I actually saw a white dude wear a tsgirt that said, "kiss me, i'm irish." Can you believe that guy? He didn't even have a good fake leprachaun accent.
> 
> You act like its only the latinos who are proud of theirgenetic heritage. Im guilty of being proud of my norwegian heritage. My two year old goes head first into.everything and I've said jokingly that she's a little biking in training. I didn't realize I was breaking an unwritten rule.


 
Uh, not sure what you're ranting about here.

I was simply saying that there are those Mexicans who don't like being called Hispanic or Latino as they are European concepts which are unrelated, except through colonization, their heritage, and gave an example of such from my past experience. He has more then his right to celebrate his heritage. In fact, as a Black man, I would say that I wish that I could point to my place of historical origin and understand it's culture

I was also giving you my reasoning for not liking being labeled as African-American. I never said that people shouldn't celebrate their heritage.



> Regardless of akin color, very few people in america are just american. That was my point. The double standard os that white people don't think that when they put a swedish flag on their car that it counts.


 
And I wouldn't care for that either.

However, to me the tipping point is whether this person uses their ethnic heritage to separate themselves from the rest of the population, or as a simple recognition and pride over it. 

I know black and hispanic people who use such terms because they are deliberatly trying to separate themselves from people not of their background.  That's why *I *don't like it.


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2011)

A little fatal flaw in the 'Mexican vs. Latino' debate:

A lot of you 'Mexicans' are not from our neighbor south of the boarder, but from any of the central american countries.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 14, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Do we specify which state of Mexico Mexican Americans come from? No.


I was refering to an entire country. To go by your logic, Mexican Americans would then be North American Americans. Does mixing Continents, States, countries, counties, and city states all together to make some lame point make any sense at all?... *NO!
*Sean


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 14, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I was refering to an entire country. To go by your logic, Mexican Americans would then be North American Americans. Does mixing Continents, States, countries, counties, and city states all together to make some lame point make any sense at all?... *NO!
> *Sean



It does when "Africa" becomes one big homogenous, miserable "over there" place, full of malaria and AK47 wielding natives.  It's pretty common to do so, many are guilty of it and not all the guilty share a common viewpoint or politics.  Never mind that there is almost no cultural similarity between say Egypt and Mozambique, it's all "Africa."


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 14, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> It does when "Africa" becomes one big homogenous, miserable "over there" place, full of malaria and AK47 wielding natives.  It's pretty common to do so, many are guilty of it and not all the guilty share a common viewpoint or politics.  Never mind that there is almost no cultural similarity between say Egypt and Mozambique, it's all "Africa."


View points aside, to take someone of obvious European descent, and try to pass them of as simply African instead of South African, is kind of insulting. And, by that I mean insulting to African Americans that know damn well that kid's family originally came from Europe. If you want to play this ridiculous game, go right ahead, but its asinine.
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 14, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Sorry but regardless of their skin colour, their religion, their ancestry and provided they are a citizen of your country.arent theyjust Americans?


 
I think they are only all Americans to those of us outside of America!


----------



## Steve (Jan 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think they are only all Americans to those of us outside of America!


Honestly, that's pretty typical.  I tend to lump the UK into one group as well, even though I know that there are discrete cultural identities within that very small geographic area.  

In America, though, I think that it's more about the relative youth of the country.  It is a country of immigrants with some relatively recent cultural baggage.  So, you have people who are proud to be American, who are also proud to be of X, Y or Z stock.  Whether that's African-American, Boriqua or Scandihoovian.  The double standard I'm pointing out, though, is that caucasians do it as much as anyone, but don't tend to recognize the behavior for what it is.   The Scandinavians, Irish and Italians are often extremely proud of a cultural heritage many have never experienced first hand.  As I said, I'm guilty of it myself.  

And just to be clear, the only thing that irritates me is the implication that white people don't do it.  

5-0 kenpo, if I misunderstood your point, I apologize.  I will say, though, that it's human nature to want to be distinguished from the crowd in some way.  If it's not cultural, it's something else.  I don't personally have a problem with it.


----------



## billc (Jan 14, 2011)

Ken Morgan, you're right.  Once someone from somewhere else becomes a citizen, they are as American as anyone from the founding.  That is the magic of the United States.  One of my favorite examples is the late night host Craig Ferguson.  He just became a citizen, having originally been a citizen of Scotland.  He is now one of us.  Big loss to Scotland though, he is a really funny guy.  Please, all potential citizens, do it the right way.  It would prevent a lot of grief all the way around.  The system is slow and expensive, lets fix that so that it moves faster and smoother.  That way we can drain the brain power, the hard work ethic and the spirit of entrepeneurism from the other countries of the world.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 15, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> View points aside, to take someone of obvious European descent, and try to pass them of as simply African instead of South African, is kind of insulting. And, by that I mean insulting to African Americans that know damn well that kid's family originally came from Europe. If you want to play this ridiculous game, go right ahead, but its asinine.
> Sean


 
Do you really want to talk about asinine?

I have never looked at a legitimate questionairre and seen a classification regarding individual countries.  Using the lingo of the United States, why would they say South African-American vs. African-American.

And as a so-called African-American, I don't find it insulting at all.  

If I was "white-skinned", but my family lived in, say, South Africa, for 300 years, and I choose to move to the United States, from where am I descended?

But let's go back even further.  Where are all humans descended from?  Hmmmm?  Africa, perhaps?

That is why this game is asinine.  We pick an arbitrary time in history to determine where you are "descended" from, all to suit some _political and ego-driven _game.

Oh, by the way, why does someone who has never even been to Africa have the right to call themselves African-American, but not someone who was actually born and raised there does not?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> 5-0 kenpo, if I misunderstood your point, I apologize. I will say, though, that it's human nature to want to be distinguished from the crowd in some way. If it's not cultural, it's something else. I don't personally have a problem with it.


 
Yes it is.  But there is a difference when you use that "distinguishing" characteristic as a defining one and use it to separate yourself from your fellow citizens.

I'll give you an example.

I'm a cop.  Now, if I told you that and that was the end of the conversation, I have "distinguished" myself from you.  I'm sure that you wouldn't even mind me using such a characterization to convince the bouncers in Vegas to let me skip through line (unless you're in it, of course).  But if I uses that status in such a way to use it as an excuse for say, speeding, running red lights, etc., I'm sure that you would have a problem with that.  

We may both be citizens, but I'm a cop, and that separates my rights and priviliges from yours.  It's the same thing.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 15, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Do you really want to talk about asinine?
> 
> I have never looked at a legitimate questionairre and seen a classification regarding individual countries.  Using the lingo of the United States, why would they say South African-American vs. African-American.
> 
> ...


If you don't like the term fine.
Sean


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 15, 2011)

the term african american, no matter how noble its intentions, always seemed weird to me. a lot of the people are many generations american and you'd have to go back to slave times to find anyone from africa.  The people living today have little if anything to do with africa - they are americans. If you use that term then I must be a 'british-canadian' since my ancestors or some of them anyways, came from there.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 15, 2011)

People may lump the UK as being all one but they are one because of conquest not by actual choice. In fact the countries are now separating.

Wasn't the original premise though that everyone who went to America to settle and subsequently had families etc there were all Americans? That everyone was the same...an American? it's what's been peddled for a long time by American to the rest of us for sure.


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 15, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> People may lump the UK as being all one but they are one because of conquest not by actual choice. In fact the countries are now separating.
> 
> Wasn't the original premise though that everyone who went to America to settle and subsequently had families etc there were all Americans? That everyone was the same...an American? it's what's been peddled for a long time by American to the rest of us for sure.


 
That is the ideal.  The implementation of that ideal has beean a bit rocky through our history, especially if you are a person of color.


----------



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

Using African-american, latino-american, mexican-american, irish-american, is one way politicians line us up against each other. they use group politics to keep us angry at one another, which lets them step in and use our tax dollars to reward their favored groups, punish their opposite groups and keep us from being at peace with each other. one of the best comment I have seen on this came from the Actor Morgan Freeman in an interview about Black History month. I will try to find it.





  Morgan Freeman on how to end racism.


----------



## granfire (Jan 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Using African-american, latino-american, mexican-american, irish-american, is one way politicians line us up against each other. they use group politics to keep us angry at one another, which lets them step in and use our tax dollars to reward their favored groups, punish their opposite groups and keep us from being at peace with each other. one of the best comment I have seen on this came from the Actor Morgan Freeman in an interview about Black History month. I will try to find it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HAH!
I knew you couldn't possibly get everything wrong!

Yes, the us vs them keeps the money rolling.

(but agreeing with a black man on why Black History Month is BS still gets you weird looks)


----------



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

Only from certain people who probably know how worried I am about those looks.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Using African-american, latino-american, mexican-american, irish-american, is one way politicians line us up against each other. they use group politics to keep us angry at one another, which lets them step in and use our tax dollars to reward their favored groups, punish their opposite groups and keep us from being at peace with each other. one of the best comment I have seen on this came from the Actor Morgan Freeman in an interview about Black History month. I will try to find it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Seems like this comes up every couple of years. No surprise, I think you-*and *Morgan Freeman-are completely wrong. I said as much in this thread, five years ago:



elder999 said:


> Does Black History Month actually separate us as Americans?
> 
> *Not if it&#8217;s done right.*
> 
> ...


 
]America's greatness comes from its celebration of diversity, our embracing of it-from the variousw Chinatowns and Korea towns, to Milwaukee's (and others) Poland town, and New York's Little (by now, _very_ little) Italy, people here have always gathered with their own ethnicity-whether by choice, lack thereof or *force*, and our culture has always been an amalgamation of those separate cultures, a trend that continues today, through things as diverse themselves as fashion, music, sports, cuisine and language. The words we use to denote ourselves-and, make no mistake, I prefer "black," to "African-American," I've *always* been *black*, and I prefer "Indian" to "Native American," I was *Indian* first-are part of how we hold onto those old places our ancestors came from, even when it's physically apparent in one way or another, but especially-for you dominant paradigm (European descent)-when it isn't.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 15, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Seems like this comes up every couple of years. No surprise, I think you-*and *Morgan Freeman-are completely wrong. I said as much in this thread, five years ago:


 
I think both of you are right and both wrong, though I agree with Freeman as the ultimate ideal.

In our society today, it may be necessary to have a Black History Month.  The reason being that the Black contribution to American society is often left out of regular history.  I mean, we'll hear that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, but we don't hear about how Charles Drew was revolutionary in developing large blood storage facilities (blood banks).  They are both equally momentus accomplishments, but we often only hear about the one and not the other.

The key, then, is not to pull out one groups accomplishments and put them to the forefront for a month, but to seamlessly integrate them into normal historical education and teaching.  



> America's greatness comes from its celebration of diversity, our embracing of it-from the variousw Chinatowns and Korea towns, to Milwaukee's (and others) Poland town, and New York's Little (by now, _very_ little) Italy, people here have always gathered with their own ethnicity-whether by choice, lack thereof or *force*, and our culture has always been an amalgamation of those separate cultures, a trend that continues today, through things as diverse themselves as fashion, music, sports, cuisine and language. The words we use to denote ourselves-and, make no mistake, I prefer "black," to "African-American," I've *always* been *black*, and I prefer "Indian" to "Native American," I was *Indian* first-are part of how we hold onto those old places our ancestors came from, even when it's physically apparent in one way or another, but especially-for you dominant paradigm (European descent)-when it isn't.


 
I can agree with that, but only if that were the main way that it is used.  That has not been my experience among certain communities.


----------



## granfire (Jan 15, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I think both of you are right and both wrong, though I agree with Freeman as the ultimate ideal.
> 
> In our society today, it may be necessary to have a Black History Month.  The reason being that the Black contribution to American society is often left out of regular history.  I mean, we'll hear that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, but we don't hear about how Charles Drew was revolutionary in developing large blood storage facilities (blood banks).  They are both equally momentus accomplishments, but we often only hear about the one and not the other.
> 
> ...




I think it has ebbed down in the last few years though. But it is really sad that you still need the special month to honor people who have contributed to mankind. You know, those usually left out, for no good reason.

However, there is also a bit of an unfair treatment of the other 'minorities': I know they have a month, but could not name it for you if you beat it out of me...


----------



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

I used to think of myself as a German/Irish american because that is the way everyone looks at themeselves.  Where did you ancestors come from.  Having looked at that over time I came to realize, being American is really more accurate and should be emphasized over where one's ancestors came from.  the Irish-american, black or African-american, polish-american and so on does nothing but focus on differences that really have no meaning today.  Sure, celebrating different cultures is fun, but the focus should be on the fun and not on the "we are different from you" aspect.  It is really time to move on and just be Americans.  Phase out Black history month and fix the history books, that will help heal the racial divide.


----------

