Why aren't whites called European Americans?

[still learning]

Hello, It wil take a couple of more centuries before colors/race/religion/cultures/others things are not a major issue among us?

If the human race is still around?

The world is getting very populated....can we all get together..........Aloha

 

[sgtmac_46]

So have Africans. In fact most African Americans living today have a lot of white blood in them, they are hardly pure Africans. For example Halle Barry is often looked at as African American when in fact she is half white.

And besides, isn't African American more of a broad generalization? Africa is not a country, neither is Europe. But those are two contin. that the two races came from. I think they should be viewed in the same way, not African American and White. If they are going to call European American people white, they might as well call African American people black.

This isn't a racial issue, it's about how we identify ourselves and the culture we embrace. Many "European Americans" feel no desire to identify themselves based on their "nation of origin", as that nation they feel, is America.

Black Americans have a more troubled relationship with being Americans, much of it based on historic injustices, both real and perceived. That, however, has lead to a bit of a disfunctional relationship with "being" Americans. Thus the desire to seperate themselves somewhat from the melting pot of American culture.

The real question is, however, how ultimately damaging is this self-enforced seperation to both America and the Black community. Many Black leaders in recent years have started to notice the maladaptive effect of this self-imposed seperation, and have been increasingly outspoken about changing it.

In order to continue to thrive as a nation, we must include every member of our society in to the melting pot of America and embrace them as what they are, Americans. Conversely, the Black community must be willing to set aside anger over past abuses, in order that we may move on as a nation.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

My question to MisterMike is why white South Africans aren't called "European Africans." Maybe they are, and we simply haven't heard of it.

The Old World continent or nation listing --as we use these terms in the United States-- specifically denotes the standard racial composition of that originating continent or nation. Ergo, an African American is a black United States citizen, a "Mexican American" is hispanic and has citizenship.

We rarely apply "Brazilian American" or any other national etiology to South American transplants to this country, referring to them as "hispanic," and never "South American American." I have never heard the term "Canadian American" used, and doubt it would ever be.

Many Poles, Germans, Irish and Italians list their heritage by calling themselves "(Fill in the blank) Americans," often only around the time of some Old World holiday, such as St. Patrick's day for the Irish. When pressed, they call themselves American...and with pride...but still want to own their roots to their country of origin.

Most of us don't begrudge them this.

Why, then, do we expect blacks to disown their heritage and remove the "African" from in front of "American?" In my lifetime they were treated as second class citizens unworthy of equal status. In my parents lifetime they were forbidden marriage to non-whites, denied residency in certain neighborhoods and cities, denied educational opportunities.

Those very Jim Crow laws and their history of bondage gave these people a unique experience and a unique identity that no others can claim. The Irish, Italian, German or Polish experiences in this country...while noteworthy...pales in comparison to that of the blacks. The blacks and the blacks alone appear at the centerpiece of this country's greatest Constitutional crisis, whose aftershocks are still felt today.

They stand apart in appearance and history. If they want to claim their roots with a simple defining prefix, who are we to criticize them for it?


Regards,


Steve

 

[KenpoTess]

I think of myself as an American Thai dyed Scot (being Thai & Scottish but all American

Culturally, I'm an American. Ethnically, I'm a fairly typical Euro-mutt. I've got french, english, and irish ancestry (as far as I know). Being adopted, I'm unaware of any finer divisions or of when my ancestors actually migrated here. My daughter is even crazier, since my wife is vietnamese, so she's a euro-asian-mutt.

 

[MisterMike]

My question to your question would be, "Why do we need any designation at all, especially on Federal documents?"

If this country is a melting pot, why do we:

Have to designate a race on thouands of government forms?
Have to designate a race on thousands of college applications?
Have to designate a race on drivers license applications?
Have to designate a race.......get my point yet?

Doesn't sound like a melting pot mentality. More like a bucket of oil and water.

What are people more proud of? Which flag do they prefer to hang on their rear view mirror? What languages are the public school forcing on our kids now? How many [undocumented] immigrants come over here to become American? How many just want the benefits? To me, if you want to keep America equal, the answers to these questions are a bit depressing.

This doesn't mean people are running around beating their chests saying "I'm _____ -American. When someone asks me what "nationality" I am, I'm happy to tell them my roots. But I AM an American.

Hey, when white or Anglo-Americans are the minority, I hope the new government grants me some of the same special treatments the current "minorities" have.

 

[ginshun]

The whole ***** person from South Africa thing is intrueging.

I am sure that there are forms out there being used to apply for jobs and scholarships and stuff that require you to check a race. If a white South African ended up with a job of a scholardhip that was meant for an "African American" I wonder what would happen?

The person could put "African Ameriacan" on the app and not be lieing...

wierd.

 

[Marginal]

If this country is a melting pot...
:

It's not.

 

[MisterMike]

Aw, c'mon. Slap a rainbow sticker on your car next to that peace symbol. That'll help.

 

[DavidCC]

The whole ***** person from South Africa thing is intrueging.

I am sure that there are forms out there being used to apply for jobs and scholarships and stuff that require you to check a race. If a white South African ended up with a job of a scholardhip that was meant for an "African American" I wonder what would happen?

The person could put "African Ameriacan" on the app and not be lieing...

wierd.

We signed up my step-daughter for kindergarten listed as African American. I am caucasian, so is her mother. However her biological father is black. My wife came home and told me she did this and I asked why. Her reply - you never know, she might be elgible for better scholarships later on.

Why aren't whites called European Americans?

because we don't want to be? :mp5: j/k

 

[TigerWoman]

Then there is that North and South American delineation. So what are South Americans? They say they are Americans as well and we have no right on that title alone. Well, they are coming over our borders and melting into our pot anyway.

Both sets of my grandparents came over on the boat from Germany. But my mother told me that they were told specifically not to speak German in their household. This ancestry was more repressed by the war--who would want to be known as German?

Ten years ago, I met a German woman who had just gotten her citizenship. She was ashamed of her heritage so I told her it was mine as well. But my grandparents left before the war. It was not her burden of guilt nor should it be a black mark on the descendants of that regime. I told her when you live here as a citizen, you are an American, nothing more, nothing less. It should be the same with the black people, the indian people, indonesian people, the iranian, the iraqi people and the Somali too. In our town, the Somali are still called that, but if you talk to them, they don't want to ever go back. But they keep to themselves, talk their language, organize their support organizations, keep to themselves. They hold a lot of jobs around town, go to schools, buy homes, so they should be called American not Somalis. I wonder if the women ever get drafted if they would have to discard their head scarves and dress. If you live here, you fight, work and pay taxes for America and I think you should try to adopt the ways of America not create a mini-homeland. In other words be proud of being an American. TW

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I think of myself as an American Thai dyed Scot (being Thai & Scottish but all American

A Thai Scot? Och, lassie, ye're puttin' pepper 'n curry in yer haggis, then?

-----

Mike, read the post above. I didn't say this country was a melting pot.


I think perhaps you're confusing it with the post on another recent thread where I was speaking of political perspectives, specifically writing the following:

"The Left and Right are not clearly defined in a country whose population approaches 300 million. We are hardly the "melting pot," nor approaching the pluralistic ideal. But then too there has been some homogenization, and we find that many...if given a line item veto on their politics...strike unique stances of their own at various points of the political spectrum."

That appears to be the only time on MT where I use the phrase "melting pot," if the search engine serves. Perhaps you were confused.

Now in reading your post, you seem to plead fairness. Methinks you protest too much, however.

You suggest that minorities are getting special treatments, yet fail to note that you as a white person have lost some of yours. You are no longer allowed to sit in a separate and better dining car on a train. Blacks soldiers returning from the Iraq war are allowed to sit next to you in a restaurant, and no longer have to eat outside and back of the kitchen--as their grandfathers had to do in WWII (while white German prisoners got to eat inside). Black men in South Carolina no longer have to tip their hat to you, were you to travel there. They're allowed to look at your wife or girlfriend without it being construed as subhuman lechery. They're allowed to vehemently speak their mind without being termed "uppity."

What I find so infuriating about your post Mike is the incredible disingenuousness of it. You're coming off as a victim...one for whom the playing field is no longer level. You're adopting the tone so many on the Right now do by suggesting reverse discrimination, when the discrimination you describe does not come close to that felt by blacks in this country.

You want America equal now Mike? Glad to hear it. Then certainly you won't have any problem with the recent "Robin Hood" laws that distribute revenues from property taxes equally so that poor neighborhoods get the same educational funds that richer neighborhoods do. I'm sure you'll be happy to see your taxes go to urban renewal and jobs programs so that blacks and hispanics can get caught up economically with us white folk.

You want us to take ethnic and racial references off of driver's licenses and government forms? Grand. Let's start with the Muslims. You're okay with that, right? Or should we keep all such references so we can statictically document the progress you suddenly and atypically seem to advocate?

Now as far as Spanish in the schools and the brown hordes crossing the borders, my wife teaches Spanish and the local illegals seem awfully hard working and some of their women are absolutely gorgeous...so I'm personally okay with it. According to this, the situation likely won't change:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12375951.htm

In Texas, it seems, Anglos are a minority...with the nation soon to follow. Suerte resistente, eh?

I'll end this with a quote from the article.

"Viewed through the myopic lens that xenophobes and bigots use, this information is bad news for Anglos. Sadly, some people think the game of life must have losers in order for others to win, and therefore they are threatened by the numbers."



Regards,


Steve

 

[Bigshadow]

The whole melting pot thing is an illusion. Look at any community. Each group gravitates to the sections where their own race live. As someone stated, it is human nature to want to be around those that you can identify with. Right, wrong, or indifferent that is how it breaks down. You can see it in every major metropolitan area. Large communities of like people together and like a patchwork quilt they make something bigger. All the friction generally lies along those boundaries where they meet.

The aforementioned is my opinions and observations only.

 

[MisterMike]

Mike, read the post above. I didn't say this country was a melting pot.

You're right, I did. With a bit of skepticism mind you.

I think perhaps you're confusing it with the post on another recent thread where I was speaking of political perspectives, specifically writing the following:

"The Left and Right are not clearly defined in a country whose population approaches 300 million. We are hardly the "melting pot," nor approaching the pluralistic ideal. But then too there has been some homogenization, and we find that many...if given a line item veto on their politics...strike unique stances of their own at various points of the political spectrum."

That appears to be the only time on MT where I use the phrase "melting pot," if the search engine serves. Perhaps you were confused.

No, I think you were.

Now in reading your post, you seem to plead fairness. Methinks you protest too much, however.

There are far worse protests I'd be worried with. Like violent anti-American ones.

You suggest that minorities are getting special treatments, yet fail to note that you as a white person have lost some of yours. You are no longer allowed to sit in a separate and better dining car on a train. Blacks soldiers returning from the Iraq war are allowed to sit next to you in a restaurant, and no longer have to eat outside and back of the kitchen--as their grandfathers had to do in WWII (while white German prisoners got to eat inside). Black men in South Carolina no longer have to tip their hat to you, were you to travel there. They're allowed to look at your wife or girlfriend without it being construed as subhuman lechery. They're allowed to vehemently speak their mind without being termed "uppity ni**ers."

Maybe those were your benefits, as I prolly wasn't born in those times. Even if I were, nothing lost there. Thanks for the implied insult. It's the beginning of a far left debate.

What I find so infuriating about your post Mike is the incredible disingenuousness of it. You're coming off as a victim...one for whom the playing field is no longer level. You're adopting the tone so many on the Right now do by suggesting reverse discrimination, when the discrimination you describe does not come close to that felt by blacks in this country.

Well, its actually racism I have a problem with, regardless of color. A policy based on race IS racism. It all has to go.

You want America equal now Mike? Glad to hear it. Then certainly you won't have any problem with the recent "Robin Hood" laws that distribute revenues from property taxes equally so that poor neighborhoods get the same educational funds that richer neighborhoods do. I'm sure you'll be happy to see your taxes go to urban renewal and jobs programs so that blacks and hispanics can get caught up economically with us white folk.

Wow. So all whites are financially secure today? Let me check my calandar to make sure I didn't pull a Rip Van Winkle and wake up to a glorious rich white America with no poor you proclaim exists. Oh? you mean you accidentally left them out right? There are poor white neighborhoods? Or do you just lump them in with the term rednecks so you can feel better about it?

You want us to take ethnic and racial references off of driver's licenses and government forms? Grand. Let's start with the Muslims. You're okay with that, right?

Yes. Can you find a time when I claimed otherwise? Didn't think so.

Or should we keep all such references so we can statictically document the progress you suddenly and atypically seem to advocate?

Statictically?

Now as far as Spanish in the schools and the brown hordes crossing the borders, my wife teaches Spanish and the local illegals seem awfully hard working and some of their women are absolutely gorgeous...so I'm personally okay with it. According to this, the situation likely won't change:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12375951.htm

In Texas, it seems, Anglos are a minority...with the nation soon to follow. Suerte resistente, eh?

You're probably OK with paying for health care for them all too. I am not.

I'll end this with a quote from the article.

"Viewed through the myopic lens that xenophobes and bigots use, this information is bad news for Anglos. Sadly, some people think the game of life must have losers in order for others to win, and therefore they are threatened by the numbers."

I'm going to avoid the whole straw man your sacred article builds up. Where's my matches?

 

[Tgace]

Originally Posted by hardheadjarhead
You suggest that minorities are getting special treatments, yet fail to note that you as a white person have lost some of yours. You are no longer allowed to sit in a separate and better dining car on a train. Blacks soldiers returning from the Iraq war are allowed to sit next to you in a restaurant, and no longer have to eat outside and back of the kitchen--as their grandfathers had to do in WWII (while white German prisoners got to eat inside). Black men in South Carolina no longer have to tip their hat to you, were you to travel there. They're allowed to look at your wife or girlfriend without it being construed as subhuman lechery. They're allowed to vehemently speak their mind without being termed "uppity ni**ers."

Maybe those were your benefits, as I prolly wasn't born in those times. Even if I were, nothing lost there. Thanks for the implied insult. It's the beginning of a far left debate.

Refrence the "Hate America?" thread and the "Punitive Liberalism" topic...classic example of dredging up past wrongs as an example of what is wrong today. Nothing will ever be "right" or in the past for these types. Im surprised we arent still flagellating ourselves for stuff that happened in 1776 (although Im sure I could probably find examples here somewhere). I too do not recall ever having any of these "rights" and I too sense some sort of "tactic" of smothering the opposing view by tossing a blanket of racisim over it.

 

[MisterMike]

Refrence the "Hate America?" thread and the "Punitive Liberalism" topic...classic example of dredging up past wrongs as an example of what is wrong today. Nothing will ever be "right" or in the past for these types. Im surprised we arent still flagellating ourselves for stuff that happened in 1776 (although Im sure I could probably find examples here somewhere). I too do not recall ever having any of these "rights" and I too sense some sort of "tactic" of smothering the opposing view by tossing a blanket of racisim over it.

Heh, I probably should, if not only for the comedic value. These whackjobs crack me up.

 

[heretic888]

No offense, guys, but...

Speaking as a registered Independent, a centrist/moderate (I even know what that means, too!), and a supporter of a McCaine '08 presidency...

Some people have been coming off as a bit on the nutty side. But it isn't Steve.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The whole melting pot thing is an illusion. Look at any community. Each group gravitates to the sections where their own race live. As someone stated, it is human nature to want to be around those that you can identify with. Right, wrong, or indifferent that is how it breaks down. You can see it in every major metropolitan area. Large communities of like people together and like a patchwork quilt they make something bigger. All the friction generally lies along those boundaries where they meet.

The aforementioned is my opinions and observations only.

Yes, though if we truly believe that is irrefutable human nature, that means this country is going to destroy itself. If we can't rise above sectionalism, we will not survive. Common ground, not diversity, is the cornerstone of any society. Accentuating diversity does not lead to harmony, it leads to conflict. The greater the differences we perceive between ourselves and our neighbors, the more suspicious and intolerant we become. Teaching tolerance is futile, we have to teach how to identify and appreciate commonality.

No offense, guys, but...

Speaking as a registered Independent, a centrist/moderate (I even know what that means, too!), and a supporter of a McCaine '08 presidency...

Some people have been coming off as a bit on the nutty side. But it isn't Steve.

Isn't a centrist someone who believes very strongly in mediocrity? Say what you want about extreme right wingers and extreme left wingers, at least they're willing to make a stand. (That's just a joke, by the way.)

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Yes, though if we truly believe that is irrefutable human nature, that means this country is going to destroy itself. If we can't rise above sectionalism, we will not survive. Common ground, not diversity, is the cornerstone of any society. Accentuating diversity does not lead to harmony, it leads to conflict. The greater the differences we perceive between ourselves and our neighbors, the more suspicious and intolerant we become. Teaching tolerance is futile, we have to teach how to identify and appreciate commonality.

Sounds good...sounds wonderful. Now, how does one do that? Give me some hard examples.

Start with religion. Now how does one going about finding common ground between a Muslim, a secular Jew, and an Evangelical Christian that has voted Republican since Reagan? Bridge that gap, PLEASE.

Now find the common ground between a Chippewa on the White Earth Reservation and a retired Admiral living in Hobe Sound, Florida.

Find common ground between a white man from Mississippi who has been laid off from his factory job and a black cop in Philadelphia who is going to have fairly good job security the rest of his life.

You might in your search for common ground come up with English...the flag...the National Anthem...or any other icons of nationalism. This, however, provides very little for the Mississippian's kids at Christmas, the Chippewa who gets cold stares from the whites just off the reservation, and the Muslim whose mosque just got firebombed (as happened here two months ago). These people don't share much of a common history.

Teaching tolerance and showing our children how to respect diversity will end bigotry and racism. If we teach that "different" isn't so bad, then we might accomplish something. We might get somewhere if we can actually end segregation...though illegal it is enforced by economic boundaries. If you don't believe this visit a high school in Gary, Indiana.

You can not reach any common ground without mutual interaction. You can't get that without mutual respect. You can't get mutual respect without mutual tolerance. You can't get tolerance if one or both sides fear the other.

So...what do you suggest? How do you intend to implement it?


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Yes, though if we truly believe that is irrefutable human nature, that means this country is going to destroy itself. If we can't rise above sectionalism, we will not survive. Common ground, not diversity, is the cornerstone of any society. Accentuating diversity does not lead to harmony, it leads to conflict. The greater the differences we perceive between ourselves and our neighbors, the more suspicious and intolerant we become. Teaching tolerance is futile, we have to teach how to identify and appreciate commonality.

Actually, teaching only one or the other is what is "futile".

Advocating an overemphasis on diversity, pluralism, multiculturalism, and "tolerance" leads inevitably to the re-tribalization of America (which has precisely what has happened in some areas), "identity" politics, and a type of permissive moral relativism (which itself is just a veiled form of moral absolutism). This is exactly what some social commentators have identified as the "moral decline" of society.

On the other hand, however, advocating an overemphasis on commonality, patriotic nationalism, and "unity" leads inevitably to a type of jingoistic sociocentrism in which the values, traditions, and mores of one group (either the majority or the ones in power) are imposed upon the entirety of society as the standard for how to live, resulting in a rather rigid moral absolutism. The individual differences found among minorities (both ethnic and political) and sub-cultures within the society tend to be white-washed as "unpatriotic" or, worse, "traitorous".

From where I'm standing, both of these imbalances have occured in copious amounts in the present-day United States.

Isn't a centrist someone who believes very strongly in mediocrity?

Um, no. My personal definition of "centrism" entails the following:

1) That the causes and solutions to human suffering have both internal and external paths. The "liberal" typically leans toward an externalist orientation (society is to blame for personal wrongs), whereas the "conservative" typically leans toward an internalist orientation (its your fault the way your life is, regardless of the opporunities or circumstances you were afforded). The "centrist" sees the partial validity in both of these positions, as well as their shortcomings.

2) That both moral absolutism and moral relativism are useful, but ultimately anemic philosophies of life. The "centrist" recognizes the dangers of imposing a singular set of mores on all human beings, but also realizes the logical hypocrisy of postulating that the only truth is there is no truth. Typically, a mature "centrist" advocates a type of development dialecticism, seeing "truth" and "morality" unfold within a multilayered, contextual framework.

Say what you want about extreme right wingers and extreme left wingers, at least they're willing to make a stand.

There are only two things I see in common about ideological extremists:

1) Their fanatacism - a type of myopic close-mindedness that prevents them from even acknowledging their opponents might have some positive points.

2) Their amoral opportunism - a willingness to use any weapon, tactic, or strategy (no matter how repulsive or irrational) to simultaneously make their opponents looks "bad" and themselves look "good".

 

[heretic888]

Sounds good...sounds wonderful. Now, how does one do that? Give me some hard examples.

I'm not sgtmac_46, but I'll give it a shot.

Start with religion. Now how does one going about finding common ground between a Muslim, a secular Jew, and an Evangelical Christian that has voted Republican since Reagan? Bridge that gap, PLEASE.

Already been done. Its called the 'perennial philosophy'. Adlous Huxley wrote a book about it almost a century ago, and modern religious scholar Huston Smith is still writing about it today.

Now find the common ground between a Chippewa on the White Earth Reservation and a retired Admiral living in Hobe Sound, Florida.

Find common ground between a white man from Mississippi who has been laid off from his factory job and a black cop in Philadelphia who is going to have fairly good job security the rest of his life.

You might in your search for common ground come up with English...the flag...the National Anthem...or any other icons of nationalism. This, however, provides very little for the Mississippian's kids at Christmas, the Chippewa who gets cold stares from the whites just off the reservation, and the Muslim whose mosque just got firebombed (as happened here two months ago). These people don't share much of a common history.

Teaching tolerance and showing our children how to respect diversity will end bigotry and racism. If we teach that "different" isn't so bad, then we might accomplish something. We might get somewhere if we can actually end segregation...though illegal it is enforced by economic boundaries. If you don't believe this visit a high school in Gary, Indiana.

You can not reach any common ground without mutual interaction. You can't get that without mutual respect. You can't get mutual respect without mutual tolerance. You can't get tolerance if one or both sides fear the other.

So...what do you suggest? How do you intend to implement it?

Personally, I'd suggest a postconventional moral philosophy of shared humanity. Not something that's generally embraced in this world of nationalism, ethnic "pride", and sectionalism --- but it is what is needed, nonetheless.

The tricky part, however, is that the human psyche isn't "flat". You can't just say "be reasonable!" to an individual that lacks the cognitive structures to support such a worldview. As such, I feel a developmental approach is perhaps most appropriate (the general approach of the cognitive-structuralist school of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Cook-Greuter), introducing the individual to novel cognitive pacers at appropriate stages in their own moral development.

While this is taking place, it would greatly help things to have a governance system that supports such a developmental process to take place in the first place. As long as our governments and leaders rigidly advocate things like moral relativism, ethnic tribalism, patriotic sociocentrism, or absolutist religious elitism, we're never gonna get there. A new way of thinking is needed.

That's my take, anyway. Laterz.