Racial Double Standards

Americans are all mixed breeds anyway in the long run


btw, I don't agree with this.

 

Just curious. Wasn't really heading that direction for any certain reason. Just curiosity, really.

EDIT: Makes note in "Possible Traitor" notebook.

 

Possible traitor?


I thought I just said, "I don't know."

 

That's why it's in the "possible" tab.

***Puts asterisk next to name for future observations***

 

Anyway, let's get this back on topic...

 

Stop crucifying Armenian over having the gall to be proud of the heritage of his parents as well as the United States. I, for one, am equally proud of my Nigerian heritage as I am of my American heritage, and Nigerian-American to me means just that - Nigerian, American, at once. As funny as you might think that "Possible Traitor" glib was, Horax, it hearkens back to the World War II era with the concentration camping of the Japanese. I'm sure they'd find it funny.

 

Seriously, why am I not allowed to be proud of my Armenian heritage?

 

I thought you didn't want to derail the thread, boyos.

Sheesh. AJ and I talked about it, and he knows I was joking, so drop it.

 

We did talk about it through PM. But this post didn't sound like joking to me:



Then why don't you move to Armenia?

I've got 100% European blood in my veins, but I'm not Euro-American.

Americans are all mixed breeds anyway in the long run, so where do you draw the line? If you have 100% Armenian blood (and that's a cool thing, by the way), but you are an American citizen, where do your allegiances lie? What if America went to war with Armenia? Besides it being a fast war, who do you support?

 

Darth-Horax posted on 2/15/05 1:18pm

---

I thought you didn't want to derail the thread, boyos.

Sheesh. AJ and I talked about it, and he knows I was joking, so drop it.
[hr][/blockquote]

[i]Sheesh. AJ and I talked about it, and he knows I was joking[/i] Well I ain't AJ, so unless I'm psychic that's irrelevant.

[i]boyos[/i] Looks like you're more European than you think.

 

I never said I wasn't european.

And AJ, we talked AFTER I posted that, so don't try to start it up again. Sheesh.

***thinks about adding Suzuki to the notebook***

Relax guys....it's not a real notebook.

 

Wait a minute...DID YOU JUST CALL ME WHITEY?

 

Where did anyone say anything about calling you Whitey?

 

They didn't...just had the urge to point out blatant racism in this thread.

Just kidding AJ...

 

Armenian_Jedi posted on 2/15/05 1:04pm

---

Seriously, why am I not allowed to be proud of my Armenian heritage?
[hr][/blockquote]
No reason. Everyone is entitled to be proud of his heritage. However, it does help create divisions of the type you would criticize. When a person makes a statement like this... [blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=Armenian_Jedi][b]Armenian_Jedi[/b][/link] [b]posted on 2/15/05 11:32am[/b][hr]I have 100% Armenian blood in my veins. I am an Armenian first and an American second.
[hr][/blockquote] ...it serves to encourage the idea of separation, and this of different treatment. I guess to a certain extent I do disagree with overvaluation of a cultural heritage, because it servevs to create separation; I don't see a need for "African-Americans" or "Asian-Americans" or "Armenian-Americans." It [u]promotes[/u] the idea of seeing people differently (if it didn't make people seen differently, there would be little reason for it), and this usually translates into treating people differently. Particularly in an environment where the majority ethnicity doesn't identify itself culturally (sure enough, very few people identify themselves as European-Americans or Irish-Americans or French-Americans, and even when individuals do, we basically never speak of people collectively using such terms), it serves very plainly to set minority groups aside and draw particular attentioin upon them in light of their cultural heritage. As I say, this by nature has to promote seeing people differently and by corollary treating people different on the basis of race or national origin.

Obviously, there is a balance, but I'm not sure where it lies. I do think, however, that constant celebrations of minority group pride may not be wholly compatible with the idea of pushing to eliminate differences in perception; on the one hand, groups are propping up and emphasizing separation and difference, while on the other trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

-Paul

 

Why shouldn't there be divisions? You all seem to believe that America should be one big Melting Pot, a bunch of people thrown in and mixed together to form genericism - the ingredients all have to mix in to make a good finished product. And that's all well and good. But is it too much to ask to have a Stained Glass America - all the panels individual and distinct, not forsaking their distinctions to add up to make a beautiful image of unity?

 

Because seperate but equal works so well?

 

Because seperate but equal is perfect, and the problem with segregation was that there was seperation but inequality. Congratulations, Farraday, on doing exactly what you were accusing me of - using a 'catch phrase' incorrectly and apparently for nothing but shock value.

 

No Suzuki, seperate but equal is inherently unequal.

Your idea taken logically should mean we can not require people to learn English, that Education should be avaiable in spanish, or Chinese or Arabic as well as English, however as is blatantly obvious such teaching can not be equal.


If a group wants to attempt to isolate itself to be it's own little glass piece I have no problem with it, however to go from that to say that the government should subsidize them toward that purpose is just stupid.

To compare the US to a melting pot isn't to say that the process ends, that people are turned into americans, its' to say that the culture of america is that molten metal each new thing bringing in new elements to the whole, not staying seperate of itself. Surely that is a better metaphor for human interaction then binding groups up in lead and saying they are seperate and whole of themsleves.

 

Who said anything about subsidizing? I encourage individuality and you take it to the nth degree? Anglo, please. Here's the thing - Stained Glass theory dictates that all the pieces are exactly the same except on just a few elements of the surface. Maybe if I explain further you'll get it. Ethnicities, races, should be equal, but not the same. All the pieces have the same surface area and volume. Only their heritage - the paint - is slightly different. If you try to paint over that(pretending it's not there) you get just one ugly piece of glass. Allow their different colors to shine brightly and distinctly but not unequally, and you get a beautiful picture.

 

Who said anything about subsidizing? I encourage individuality and you take it to the nth degree? Anglo, please. Here's the thing - Stained Glass theory dictates that all the pieces are exactly the same except on just a few elements of the surface. Maybe if I explain further you'll get it. Ethnicities, races, should be equal, but not the same. All the pieces have the same surface area and volume. Only their heritage - the paint - is slightly different. If you try to paint over that(pretending it's not there) you get just one ugly piece of glass. Allow their different colors to shine brightly and distinctly but not unequally, and you get a beautiful picture.


Who said anything about subsidizing?

Affirmative action isn't subsidizing racial preference? And Anglo please? Exactly what's that supposed to mean? I doubt you'd take it very well if I said anything to you followed by "my negro" so I would thank you to show me the same respect.
That would make so much more sense if humans were pieces of glass. You know, solid and unchanging and easily described and limited. Not to mention of course that when 3/4 of the glass is one colour the entire mosaic takes a distinctly similar hue.

 

Actually I would have no problem with you saying "Negro, please". Don't make assumptions just because it might help your argument. And if you've ever seen stained glass you'd know that a lot of the glass on the background is the same except for a few interiors.

 

Okay my negro brother.

The point remains that a unchanging mosaic is hardly an accurate representation of anything to do with humanity, my negro brother.

The point remains that unliek shards of glass humans change, not just over generations but over years and months and weeks.

Your little metaphor takes nothing into account except some sort of nebulous belief in the inherent sancitity of heritage.

 

Suzuki_Akira posted on 2/15/05 2:59pm

---

Only their heritage - the paint - is slightly different. If you try to paint over that(pretending it's not there) you get just one ugly piece of glass. Allow their different colors to shine brightly and distinctly but not unequally, and you get a beautiful picture.
[hr][/blockquote]
There's a big difference between letting the differences shine on their own and putting up signs below the window pointing out all the differences and encouraging special focus on them instead of the window as a whole -- the analogy's stretching a little, so I'll drop it. I'm not saying that those with, say, African heritage should pretend it does not exist, should not live their lives according to custom. I'm just saying that emphasizing difference hardly seems to me the way to attain equal perception and equal treatment. "Black History Month," anyone? What is gained on attempting to separate groups of people and emphasize it so publically?

-Paul

 

Okay my negro brother.

I love you too!

What is gained from Black History Month is a respect of black history that doesn't exist in many people, black OR white. It's trying to remove the negative sign that is IN FRONT of the tiles rather than trying to make the tiles better than all the others or something. It's the same reason why we celebrate Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic (really, Latino) History on different dates.