Self-identity is complicated–even for a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) like me.  I generally list myself as white or Caucasian.  And I am–mostly.  That is certainly how the rest of the world interacts with me–because that’s what the rest of the world assumes me to be, based on my appearance.  And the majority of my ancestors came to this country from the English Isles or France.  The majority… but not all.

So why do I bring this up now?  Because of a controversy here in Massachusetts involving Democratic Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren.  Warren claims to be 1/32 Cherokee–she was actually born in Oklahoma, although she hasn’t lived there during her adult life.  Warren isn’t an official member of the Cherokee Nation, although if that 1/32 claim is true she could be.  (Native American ancestral claims can be very difficult to document, as most people who claim some Indian blood do so based on family oral histories.)  But at times during her adult life, she has listed that part of her heritage on certain official documents.

Some are claiming that as false advertising, accusing her of trumping up an Indian heritage to gain preferential treatment.  And yet, there is no evidence that she ever received preferential treatment because of that.  And she would have never had to; women of that age are rarities in law schools, business schools, and economics departments, and her qualifications as an academic are impeccable.  Moreover, there are times when I’ve listed myself as having some Native American blood–usually on medical questionnaires, but even occasionally on other documentation that allows for more than a simple “check one box” ethnicity answer.  Because while I identify as white, first and foremost, I AM proud of my Native American heritage, and don’t like completely dismissing it.

I realize that some of you may be saying to yourself “but he doesn’t look Indian!”  And I don’t.  But I am 1/32 Chickasaw. Continue reading »

 

Imam Rauf, who is in charge of the proposed Lower Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center, was on CNN last night discussing the controversy. (You can watch a heavily edited version of the interview here, or click here for part 1 of the full version on YouTube–although being copyrighted material I don’t know if it will stay up.) It’s interesting viewing. Here’s what jumped out at me:
Continue reading »

 

Make sure to read this excellent article by Stanley Fish, Law Professor and New York Times opinion contributor. This gist of his observation is this:

“If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on or is in the air (he came from nowhere) and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.”

Continue reading »

 

The Anti-Defamation League (the ADL; an organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism) has participated and encouraged closed-minded and offensive behavior. They ought to know better, and I think they (and many other people in this instance) owe an apology to every person of faith.

Alright, now that I have your attention I should take a few steps back and explain what I’m talking about.
Continue reading »

Jan 132010
 

So I am oddly fascinated by this week’s media frenzy over Harry Reid’s use of the word “negro”.

The Washington Post summarized the contents of the book “Game Change” as follows:

The authors describe Reid assessing Obama’s strengths as a candidate. Reid, they write, “believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.”

I thought this was fascinating especially since the Census bureau announced it is including “negro” (as in “black or African-American or …” ) on the 2010 census forms because 50 thousand, usually older, people hand wrote it on the 2000 census. But this too has caused outrage. (This article has a nice summary and claims that the bureau is reevaluating its decision. Census to Drop ‘Negro’ After Backlash. Google has lots of other similar articles.)

Also, Washington Post has two nice opinion pieces about Reid’s comments:
Harry Reid’s comments were crudely put, yet true

Underground bigotry

Anyways. I was surprised that the use of the word “negro” had gotten Reid into so much trouble. Painfully old fashioned, sure, but so is he and more to the point so are the people who self-identified as negro on the 2000 census. In fact, in my parents’ lifetimes negro was the polite term that you would see in respectable publications. I’d have thought it was the content of his comment that would be more likely to offend.

© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha