We all have the same color flesh. We just have different color skin.

Personally I don't "identify" myself by my ancestors at all. The fact that my maternal grandfather was born in Norway is of zero interest to me and how I live my life. I'm no more a Kansan because my paternal grandparents were born there than I am a German because my great-great-great-great-great-granparents were born there. If it turns out that my great-grandmother was actually Malaysian, that makes me no more Asian.

My skin is "white" because my ancestors were white. I am not German because they were German. Ethnicity, race, and nationality are not passed through DNA.

Plus, pretty much all groups assume their look is the most beautiful. Is it Koreans that have a folktale about how when God was finishing the people of the earth, the white people came out of the oven too soon, the black people were in too long, but the Asians were just right? (I know I've heard that somewhere but now it will turn out to be from some horrible source.)

No, but who you were raised by tends to matter. I doubt it's coincidence that both I and my sister ended up with spouses whose families are from Chicago (our family is from Chicago), even though neither she nor I were raised there or had even visited there. As a matter of fact, of the 4 of us (myself, my wife, my sister, and her husband), only my brother in law was actually raised in Chicago. But there is no doubt that part of the reason we we all get along so well is a certain amount of commonality based on the Chicago connection. It's a cultural thing.

That's why I still, and likely will always, identify as "eastern European Jew", even though I've never been to Eastern Europe and I'm 3 generations removed from anyone who lived in Europe and am closer to agnostic than a practicing Jew. Because I know that when I meet someone else connected to an eastern European ancestor, there is a high likelihood that we will share a certain commonality of culture.

Culture, race, ethnicity, and nationality are imprecise, overlapping, and routinely misused. But they are also quite interleaved. It's true that in the end, culture is the main thread that binds any people together. It just happens that the other "traits" are often a convenient shorthand, imprecise as they may be.

Then explain why I (first generation Californain from OLD East Coast stock, Mayflower decendent, and pure Brit Mutt even in America) married Chris (first generation American, from old German family with White Rissian roots)? There is no common cultural connection between us at all......unless you count punk rock. ;)

You, me, and Iggy Pop - "I'm a punk rocker, yes I am"

Nothing's absolute. Even identical twins don't come out with the exact same personalities. Shared culture is one of many factors. But it's one that, on the average, plays a significant role. When you're talking average in a large sampling, you'll always be able to find examples of outliers, but that doesn't negate the importance (e.g., One dude living to 115 on a diet consisting wholly of unflavored yogurt and cigar smoke doesn't change the fact that the same diet would kill most people).

But yes, I would count punk rock. Culture is a malleable thing, we all belong to and are influenced by different cultures and subcultures. And we're all more likely to have things in common with people whose cultural context contains something that matches our own.

In my case, living in the San Fernando Valley, there is no shortage of people of eastern European Jewish cultural decent, nor a shortage of people of Chicogan cultural decent. Geographic/national and religious culture is pretty strong and often the easiest to connect with, so given a large sampling it's likely people sharing those will be drawn together. Absent that (I can't imagine there are too many Mayflower descendants around LA), something like aesthetic culture makes for a good second tier connection.

I run into the PC thing all the time when dealing with people who can't hear well or at all. Some prefer deaf, others Deaf, others 'hearing impaired', and still others 'hard of hearing'. Some view their hearing loss as a more descriptive term (deaf), while others are Deaf culture hardcore and it is a statement about them as a whole. Ironically, these persons are often the most intolerant of others who are different and can be a big PITA. (They are right now in the process of ruining Gaulledet University). Tori prefers the term 'hearing impaired', as 'hard of hearing' seems so geriatric.

Right now in Spokane a member of the Parks board is in hot water for referring to a former board member in a not PC way- he said 'colored', and one of the groups making the biggest stink is The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.:rolleyes:

Did you catch the episode of Scrubs re: cochlear implants? The kid in it was the son of a family friend. Pretty terrible episode that did a horrible job of addressing the issues of either cochlear implants or parental rights.

Doc: Hey deaf dad, your son's a perfect candidate for implants
Dad: No
Doc: You're a terrible parent, so we're going to call the kid's mom who actually has custody and have her sign the consent (which just kinda happened with no further discussion)

- later, after mom signed consent -

Doc: So, deaf dad, why didn't you want him to have the surgery?
Dad: Because being deaf was the only connection I had with my son. I'll get over it.
Doc: Aww, see, aren't you glad we ignored you and forced you into doing the "right thing"?


?!?!?! Horrible.

When I worked at the University of Washington's serials collection in Suzzallo Library there was one thing you could learn just by scanning the collection of journals over the past 150 years: The shifting landscape of preferred social grouping names over time. I remember one single journal that did the full Negro --> Colored --> Black --> Afro-American --> African American migration over its long history. Many other racial and ethnic groups have made similar journeys.

As I've long felt, so long as there is derogatory intent in referring to a group, it doesn't matter how often you change the name since the new word will just come to be viewed that way as well.

Yeah, it is amusing that the NAACP would protest colored. But the United Negro College Fund doesn't make that word any more appropriate for general use. It is equally amusing that an adult in a remotely political position wouldn't realize that colored is off limits.

GD: I understand the shorthand of shared experience. I don't understand it being an "identity" that needs to be preserved, protected, rejoiced, worshipped, or otherwise as objectively important. If you hadn't been raised the way you were (say your parents ran away from home and started a peach farm in rural Georgia) would you (and more importantly should you) still identify as East European Jew?

Didn't catch that one, GD- I don't think I've ever seen Scrubs.

It just seems to me that changing what's acceptable every decade and even then it's only acceptable to a certain percentage of the group being addressed.....well, it's confusing and frustrating and a lot of hard feelings happen unnecessarily. The gentleman I referred to is by all accounts a really nice guy and certainly meant no harm. He falls into the ignorant but probably not racist category, and I suspect a lot of others do as well. In his day (he's older) that was the accepted term. My MIL is always saying 'Oriental' instead of Asian, just out of habit and not due to any malicious intentions, because that's what was said the majority of her life.

Oh, I understand getting left behind and not knowing what's current and among which groups. But colored hasn't really been well accepted for almost 40 years. You'd think it might come up before now.