Seems like these days anyone who is different, or special, in any way can create a subclass of being American. This started with the politically correct movement in the early 90's when describing someone by the color of their skin vs. their assumed heritage was taboo.
For Example:
WRONG — Joe Smith is a black.
RIGHT — Joe Smith is African-American.
I have always found it silly that this system requires that we are to assume the right adjective based on, well a persons skin color. And I'm not sure why it's necessary to describe a person by the inherited tribe followed by the current tribe: Asian-American. I don't know what these new titles have done to curb racism in America (which I assume was one of the reasons for creating said system) but it has spawned an entire nonsensical nomenclature for describing people who live in the United States of America.
And it seems to be getting a little out of hand.
Consider today's words of former New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey, "My truth is that I am a gay American". Gay-American? What does your sexual status have to do with living in the United States? And how is being gay in America any different from being gay in say, Argentina?
Perhaps I am missing the whole point because I have never been given, nor created a group-affiliation-American title. This isn't a process to be taken lightly and sparks a series of questions:
Does everyone in the (group)-American get jackets?
Can I sue the State of California for not referring to me by my proper affiliation?
Once you're in an affiliation is it possible to transfer into another, like say the Catholic-Americans? And if so how much are the dues?
All of these are, I think, very important to consider as I surely do not want to be the last man in America without an alternative to describing me without resorting to calling out my skin/eye/hair color, sexual preference, height, weight, age, birthplace, current residence, favorite soccer team, method of commuting, etc.
So from now on you may now refer to me by any of these affiliation names:
Caucasian-American
Scottish-American
Alaskan-American
Californian-American
Apple-User-American
Iced-Latte-Drinking-American
Disneyland-Passholder-American
German-Car-Driving-American
A-List-A-Part-Reading-American
Vancouver-Loving-American
Just whatever you do, don't refer to me as a White, Non-Hispanic guy — that would be way too offensive and taboo.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Love it. Thanks for the humor.
Can I be a Non-American?
very well said, and I now will go by those titls too :P
I think I would fall under the category:
Unpolitically-Correct-White-Guy-American
:p
I'm not sure that former Governor McGreevey meant it as "Gay-American," since the quote didn't capitalize or hyphenate the term. I think he meant something along the lines of "I'm gay, and still just as American as you are." Being gay means being vilified by significant numbers of Americans, and being equated with terrorists by some mouth-breathers.
Whatever McGreevey may have meant, I agree that this is getting out of hand. As you might have guessed, I am a member of the group whose name is so specific that it has to be abbreviated: the LGBT community. Note that the L comes before the G, or else someone will come and kick my ass for getting it wrong. I'm glad I'm not a T or I'd feel like the red-headed stepchild of the group.
Since I'm a member of that group, does that mean we all think alike? Are we all Democrats? Nope. I think that these hyphenated (and otherwise) affiliations are barely any better at reducing prejudice than terms that would be considered offensive.
The other day I half seriously called myself a German-American, and it sounded ridiculous.
Wow... I am a non-American... far out! That does make sense.
Unless you have dual citizenship it seems pretty ridiculous to keep the adjective. It's as though the melting pot's tempature wasn't set high enough and chunks are starting to form.
When I tell ppl that I'm American, they will always ask, "ok, but where do you come from?"
And when you get asked that everytime, it's just easier to say, "I'm Chinese-American."
Greg & other Airbagonians,
I suppose we can take this a step further by acknowledging that we really aren't the only Americans. What about South Americans and Central Americans? I suppose what McGreevy really meant he was a gay North American. Because that is *clearly* different than a Central American gay. Now that I think of it I am a descendant of the 50/50 club. 50% English-North American and 50% Swiss-German North American. Really the first one doesn't even count because by the time my ancestors even made it to North America we were'nt even part of England so it would just be 50% North American. Funny enough the word American stems from the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci. So in one way or another - we're all confused.
It's getting late. The CSS is going straight to my brain.
Ciao.
Mmm.. I love this last one! Hear hear! (I'm from the place...)
"Vancouver-Loving-American"
Greg, this is a well-thought-out post. I love it. I guess that I have to expose that I am a Straight Married Catholic English North-American, Irish North-American, French North-American, German North-American, which means that I have a hard time deciding whether or not I should cook potatoes or soup, or cook the hell out of a roast or just hit it with a sledge hammer. Go figure.
I say Woody,
Would you mind expanding on the meaning of LGBT, please? I'm afraid that we British aren't totally au fait with all the acronyms that our Colonial-British cousins are using these days.
Or, in American-English:
LGBT? WTF?
LGBT = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans(gender?)(sexual?).
I'm an Atheist-American. We're pretty vilified nowadays too. We do eat babies and bathe in the blood of lambs, though, so maybe it's not without good reason.
You know, if we want to really home in on our globo-local heritage and be more specific than even North American, we should tag one more bit of information in there. I am, under my new proposed labeling rules, an Athest-United-States-of-American.
Greg,
you are the voice of reason! Thank you for saying what everyone else has been thinking, but were too afraid to say.
adios!
I think I'll call myself a Techno-American.
Re: McGreevey -- I don't go around saying that I'm a Lesbian American. That just sounds silly...but like Woody, I understood his sentiment. I think he is all too aware of what sound byte the news outlets will be using -- McGreevey knew what impact his actions would have on the political landscape.
Would that make me just plain Canadian?
Thank you for your post. I saw the story linked on Drudge Report then I actually heard the clip from the evening news and I couldn't believe my ears. How ridiculous can you get??? "Gay American"? I feel the same way you do. I don't go around waving my hand yelling, "Hey! I"m a Straight American!" you know? Did he do it so that "Gay" doesn't sound so bad? Did he do it to get sympathy or to make it sound more acceptable?
Kudos to the guy for stepping down since he felt like the position of governor could be compromised, but as far as "Gay American" goes, knock it off!
I for one welcome our new Apple-User-Iced-Latte-Drinking-Disneyland-Passholder- German-Car-Driving-Vancouver-Loving-American overlords.
Also, there is no such thing as American-English. You should let Microsoft know on my behalf. (via)
I suppose European-American would be an acurate description for many of us. Why, consider my grandparents: Swedish-American, English Amarican, Scottish-American and Dutch-German-American. Dutch-German?? Yes, my paternal grandmother's family has a German name (VanTilburg) but settled New Amsterdam with the Dutch. And yes, that was New Amsterdam - before the English took it over and renamed it New York. Which means my families' third generation in America fought the Revolutionary War (beat that).
Which begs the question: Could one get any more American that that? (Over ten generations of ansesters born in America) Yes they could. Try Native-American. Which, I suppose is where all the 'dash' American stuff stems from. After all, 'Indians' makes no sense what so even. And what else are we supposed to call them. Sure, we could use their individual tribes, but that would confuse too many people. (Personaly, I know some Senecas who preffer that over anything else)
So, yeah, this 'dash' American stuff is silliness. I was born in America, so I'm American (or North-American) and that's it. Plain and simple.
Personally, I've never much understood racial pride. It is as banal at racial prejudice. Why should I be proud of my race? It's like being proud that I have brown eyes or hair on my back.
Greg - regarding the questions raised:
1) Yes. Base membership includes a genuine Sateen™ jacket embroidered with your name and group affiliation. However, in order to receive your jacket, you are required to renounce any other affiliations, sign an oath of fealty, and have the group's emblem tatooed in one of three locations on your body.
2) Yes, but all such cases are investigated by Mark Fuhrman prior to going to trial.
3) No, sorry. That's why the branding requirement was instituted.
It's funny you should mention that. When I heard the Governor confess to his wrong doing and call himself a gay-american, I thought it odd. To top it off, when I was listening to Fox News (via XMRadio), they were saying gay-american as well.
I think these hyphenated titles divide our country instead of unite it. Although my family "came over on the boat" in 1830 I feel I should be given a hyphen as well: what about American-american? Sounds like a broken record, but it will have to do.
You briefly mentioned it, but I'd like to emphasis that calling someone an African-American is an assumption (or educated guess) based on their skin color (and other racial attributes). Apparently it's politically correct to categorize people based on color and racial attributes, as long as you translate those thoughts to "something-American" before you speak of it.
I'm happy to say that we have less of this particular type of nonsense in Sweden. Calling a person of the negro race publically a "negro" does offend some people, but not at all in private conversations with friends or anything like that. Why? Because in our ears the word "negro" (the Swedish word is "neger") isn't that a loaded term; to most people here it's simply the name of the race of a people from Africa.
I agree with the others that I don't think McGreevey was using it as a hyphenation. I believe the hyphenation started with African-American, which was a way for that community to define itself, rather than letting the majority culture do it for them. And for the most part, I think that's what other minority groups try to do. I don't see what all the fuss is about. More power to 'em.
But the whole "American" or "North American" thing is a pet peeve of mine. It is very simply a function of the language. I am an American because I am a citizen of the United States of America in much the same way as a Canadian is a citizen of Canada, and it doesn't mean that I am laying claim to the whole continent to the exclusion of others.
There. I feel better now.
I thought it was a positive statement.
It sent the message, "Even though you might not be gay, we still have something in common."
If he had just said, "I'm gay," then non-gays could say, "I have nothing in common with that guy."
The gay rights movement has sought to humanize (de-demonize?) homosexuality -- this is best done by pointing out the similarities between gay and non-gay people.
Personally, I think sexual orientation is NOT a big deal, and that legally committed same-sex couples deserve the same rights as those that hetero couples enjoy (there are at least 1,138 of them at the Federal level alone). It's a no-brainer to me, considering what the Constitution says.
However, I also find it sad that we live in a political climate where the best way to make your point is to wrap yourself in the flag.
The weirdness I felt about the Governor's use of the term was not that it was overly PC, but that it irrelevantly clung to a spirit of patriotism.
Personally, I've never much understood racial pride.
Maybe that's because you've never been separated out because of some attribute of yours that puts you in a minority.
Any time one group refers to another as "them" or "the disabled" or "the blind" or, whatever, it makes me cringe.
"The disabled" puts all people with disabilities in a class. "People with disabilities, while a mouthful, and while PC-ish, doesn't.
I'm not PC nor do I think you can change underlying feelings with PC language engineering. I do think it's easy to find fault with all this linguistic flailing when you've not been on the receiving end of prejudice or stereotypical, knee-jerk reactions.
All the linguistic stuff is part of the struggle, the personal struggle among people who are on the receiving end of prejudice to figure out how they fit in and who they are. That may be a load of psycho-babble but I'm pretty sure there's more going on than just the Starbucksian fine tuning of "I'd like a cup of coffee" with "I'd like a decaf, no fat, no whip, mocha..."
This stuff is messy, no doubt about it, and when it gets in your face it's difficult to take.
I'm old enough to have seen most of the evolution of the civil rights movement. When it started, most people thought it was so much crap but in the end it moved a lot of people a long way (except in the State of Florida during election season).
Ha... first, Woody got it: he wasn't saying "Gay-American", he was saying "gay American." Not related to what you're talking about.
Second, with what you're talking about, while a good point, I don't understand people coming in and saying, "Ah, the voice of reason! Thank you so much for speaking what we've all been thinking but couldn't say!"
Orrrrr... what we've all THOUGHT for ten goddamn years now. This is nothing new: yes, it IS out of control, but it's been that way for some time now...
Great post Greg -- like everyone else it seems, my wife and I had this same discussion last night after the "gay-American" statement.
Does this mean that if I'm touring say, Europe, I am to introduce myself in a consistent manner?
"Hi, I'm Josh. I am a straight-American."
I swear, 50 years from now, all the straight white folks who can't trace their heritage are going to feel left out cos they don't belong to a group. They're just American.
Bummer, eh?
I found it interesting that no one seemed to get bent when Kottke made a stink about the terms "blog" vs. "weblog."
Rather PC of him, don't you think?
Seth-American,
I agree with you that I am not necesarily the voice of reason here but I am hitting on a collective nerve. It's always assumed that pink people have never been on the other end of some type of prejudice which is a load of crap.
I would remind readers that America's fore-fathers came across the Atlantic to flee religious prejudice. Growing up I remember going into stores and not being served because I didn't look like I had money. Me, the pink guy living the life of high and mighty Anglo privilege, rank, and better skin tone have had been called names, mocked, and segregated because I was somehow different: I'm a preachers kid or because I have red hair.
It has been suggested to me that these monikers are better labels than their traditional slang counterparts. And I agree with that but those persons who would call a person niger or chink probably did not think twice about using these adjectives again even after PC descriptions were made readily available and integrated into the American lexicon. So who are these labels really for?
We all suffer from prejudice to think otherwise is silly. And thinking that more labels is going to help is even more silly.
That's so true! Enjoyed your humor. With the upcoming Olympics, all winners from the United States are classified simply as "Americans", as it should be.
"Aunt Deb"
Greg,
I'm sorry, but this old saw just doesn't hold up. Not being served because you didn't look wealthy doesn't really compare to other forms of prejudice. We may all experience prejudice, but that doesn't make all prejudice equal.
I am white, and I've never been picked up by police because I just happen to be walking down the street of a black neighborhood. I've never been denied a mortgage/job/etc. because I was white. I've never been beaten up because I was white. I've never been had a group of homosexuals chase me out of a bar and then beat me to death because I am straight.
It's just not the same. And for us to spend time arguing about what "they" should call "themselves" really kind of misses the point. It's not about coming up with an approved label; it's more about defining one's identity in the midst of a culture that historically has defined it for you, often not to your benefit.
Thank you Michael Prell. beautifully said.
One should define himself through his actions not through his titles.
Michael, how about doing away with labels all together? And, as David suggests letting our actions, the way we live our lives, define who we are.
Maybe that's because you've never been separated out because of some attribute of yours that puts you in a minority.
Richard, it is interesting that you assume this is true, although I think almost everyone has been in that position at one time or another.
I guess my point is that shame and pride are the opposite sides of the same coin. If we argue -- quite rightly -- that no one should be ashamed of their race or sexual orientation, why should we think they should be proud of it?
A very interesting article at Slate covers a similar subject.
If you get to be Scottish-American I want to be Danish-American or Viking-American. Hmmm...definitely Viking-American!
Denmark makes pastries and people? Amazing.
There have been a lot of great comments here. However I have to agree with some people more than others. Seth Thomas Rasmussen is one of those. This is most definitely not a new issue. I've hated this load of crap since I was in grade school (which is even longer than I've hated "reality" TV!). Hell, a few weeks ago Colin Quinn brought the topic up on his show. He said that it's become silly that people can't describe people to police officers without using color (the article was, I believe, about a person reporting a crime by a black person to a black police officer). The person didn't want to tell the officer that the assailant was a black person. I believe the person beat around the bush until the officer directly asked for a description. Colin remarked how it's no longer PC to have a conversation and use a person's color to describe them.
I agree with this reasoning. Skin color is nothing more than a description. We, as a people, have become so afraid of offending people that we use stupid words to describe people of differing races. If I'm telling a story and the only way to describe a person is 'black' I'll say they're black, plain and simple. If it's not relevant, I'll leave it out. What's the big deal about that? To give an example: This guy offered me $50 to mow his lawn. In a case like that I don't need to describe him so 'this guy' is fine. Another example: The asian guy kicked me (considering there are three people a white guy, a black guy, and an asian guy). I'm not going to say the 'little guy with black hair kicked me.' Yes I realise I'm stereotyping asian people here, but really I'm not. How? I'm giving a description that might be used to describe an asian person. Stereotyping is a judgment of personality based on race, creed, looks, etc. Stereotyping is not providing a description common to a race.
Even Greg seemed on shaky ground using the word 'nigger.' He added 'chink' to his statement to, I suppose, make his seem like he wasn't pointing out a specific race. As I said, we've become afraid. As Mr. Quinn said, we've become so afraid of looking like a racist that we're afraid to say anything. Using the word nigger in such a way, or at all, does not imply that I'm racist. It does if I use it in such a way that it's demeaning to a people. And for the record black people aren't black; they're brown. I always wonder what happens when you call a Jamaican and African-American?
A lot of this stemmed from the feminist movement in the early '90s. A lot of comedians have hit on this topic as well. I recall hearing, I believe, Lewis Black talk about how stupid it is to call people, mailperson, or postperson. He even said what's a people-person a person-person?
Anyway before I get too ranty I'd just like to describe myself in this asinine way as well: Anglo-French-Scott-Irish-Australian-German- Spanish-Cuban-North-American-Designer/College Student-Floridian-Mutt. That brings up another interesting point that is less often discussed: slash. I think I've only heard one rant about that. Maybe you can write about how everyone is slash this and slash that?
Greg,
I agree that, ultimately, actions do more to form opinions than words. I don't know what it would mean to do away with labels, though, even though I agree that they have limited use.
And I'm not sure that what McGreevey was doing was labeling himself, anyway. Was it a confession, a declaration of pride, a statement of affiliation or a simple statement regarding a facet of himself that he had never admitted to in public? I don't know, but it doesn't bother me so much if he, or anybody, chooses to do so.
Very nicely said, Joe Clay!
Color of the skin is just another attribute that we can use to describe a person (such as red-haired, tall, skinny) where as African-American implies a lot of other characteristics which might not apply. The dark color of your skin doesn't necessarily mean you are African. Nor does that fact that you are/live in the USA make you American.
I'm white, live in France, am Swiss, straight, atheist - what does that make me? If you want to describe me, just use the appropriate term according to the context, but if you want to call me, call me by my name, no attributes.
I guess that makes me a six-foot-eight-basketball-hating-American.
My abnormal height eliminates the need for skin-color descriptions. I wonder which would get more irritating over time?
Thanks Ben! It really is annoying when people call you by your attributes, or assume something about you because of them. Sometimes when I'm at work and I'm facing away from people and crouched down fixing something people will say to me "Excuse me miss," because I have long hair which I'm donating to locksoflove.org (I'm obviously a guy however so it rarely happens, though once it happened when I had short hair and that was a really stupid person). You don't understand how annoying this is unless it's happened to you. It's like, couldn't you have just said "Excuse me?" I mean, when you work somewhere and it's obvious you work there you get a lot of people that don't call you by your name because they don't know it, or can't see your name tag so you'll obviously respond to "Excuse me." I also hate it when people call me sir, unless it's in jest. One day I think I'll tell them, "Whoa! Hold that sir stuff, that's what my father's called."
Hey, you forgot the majority-minority: Gyno-Americans.
BTW, I believe it was George Carlin who made that joke about a person's-person. He just loves linguistics.
You might enjoy the beginning of today's Unger report.
It is possibly the most absurd system in the world - and all for what to pretend that everyones equal . I believe our differences should be celebrated not hiddden behind some poltically correct clap trap
I think I'm just an American I was born here and I'll die here. I have an Irish/German background, but I'm not Iris-German-American.
My buddy looks Asian but he was born here too. He calls himself an American. Not Chinese-American. Just American. When people ask him where he comes from he says Philidelphia.
I think this sums up my thoughts all the psudeo-Americans.
I guess you guys all must have it pretty tough having to hear people refer to minorities as blank-American. I think this is a rediculous thing to complain about and I just wanted to point out one reason why this PC type name calling is justified.
You say, why cant we just call african americans black? Well, if you look at all the African Americans I know, I would call them brown or dark brown or light brown. So perhaps that would make more sense then the word black. Black was mainstreamed by the black panther, malcom X, and other less peace driven parts of the civil rights movement. They needed a word to replace negro, boy, and other derrogitory terms thus they decided black was good because it is the opposite of white. The fact black also has a more negative/dangerous conotation was part of this choice as well. This term was eventually integrated into mainstream society but if this term originated from pure description, brown would have been much more suitable. So why the history lesson?
Well, it is a fairly well establashed principle that language used can be a sign of a societys underlying feelings. This applies to words dealing with sex, race, and other facets of society. Although this does not apply to all individuals feelings the language used does give a general feel and can help maintain societal feelings. The problem with our society calling african americans "black" is that the media currently has about 3 main stereotypes of african american men and the word reinforces one of these sterotypes. These stereotypes date back to when whites were producing films and media to help make sure african americans were kept unequal. The stereotype that the word "black" helps enforce is that of the "black buck", this is an overtly dangerous, sexual, and to a point evil man, even if in a very anamalistic manner. Hopefully you guys know why stereotypes are dangerous so I won't go into that, but this stereotype is reinforced on T.V shows (cops, ect), movies, and in the news media in general. Thus helping a large portion of white suburban americans sterotype any big tough looking black guy on the street into a single mold. Using the term black only helps to maintain this stereotype through language.
As for your other examples, some are flawed, others are not but I must go so I cannot go into it now. I am not implying you guys are racist or that you dislike african americans, I am just pointing out that this country is not a very fair place, despite what you guys seem to believe, and it is important to allow language to change as we work towards a more equal america.
As a racial majority in America, caucasian people like myself have the conveience of being part of a very inclusive group. Everywhere I go, I can see my race looking back at me(magazines tv, etc.) American society, although less now than even 10 years ago, is totally geared towards those who live in the majority group. Of course its annoying to caucasians who don't think of themselves as a group. Because we are so over-exposed to media and culture that includes us, we don't see a need for any other cultures or races to have a special name or designation. The reason these "PC" names for different races exist is because these minority groups are trying to hold on to some semblance of an indenity among the white-wash of American media. These names help to distinguish minorites as something other than just "another color."
All humans are brown.
I beg to differ, I'm very pink.