User login
Navigation
Syndicate
Who get to decide?
This thread was inspired by Lynn's "Rolling back civil rights?" journal entry but it is *not* a discussion about the merits of being gay or the merits of civil rights protection. Instead, it's a question of who gets to decide our social labels.
For example, if I identify as straight but my employer cites the fact that I march in gay rights parades as proof that I am a lesbian, who wins that debate? What if I am a man married to a woman but I say I am gay? Am I straight or gay?
Similarly, I was recently reading an anthology of adoption articles. One of the writers was arguing that children available for adoption should not be identified by race because racial affiliation is a personal choice and not something to be imposed by others. Is that true? If I look black, am I black? If I look white but choose to identfy as black, can I do so?
Are social labels the domain of society, or are they entirely personal? Should we be able to identify as anything we shoose to identify as, or should social labels be based on something concrete, such as a genetic configuration or an observable behavior?
I was talking this over last week with a friend of mine who is the mother of a child most people would identify as biracial. My friend told me that race is an entirely social construct because it's based solely on the outward presentation of internal genetic combination. There are certain patterns of genetics that produce features that we tend to identify as Asian or African, but that's no different than the patterns of genetic combination that produce features we tend to identify as blue eyes or brown eyes. My friend is of the opinion that we are all of the same race (human) and that a better description of "racial" differences would be that we are of different "breeds," (for example, I would be a mutt because I am of mixed Irish and Scottish ancestry).
My sister is married to a man from Iran who is racially Caucasian (if you subscribe to the theory that there are three races, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid), but most people think that he is Arabic (which falls under the Mongoloid, or Asian, racial catagory). Is my nephew biracial because most people think he is?
Is a person's race or sexual identity inherent, or is it imposed?
One last question: if sexual orientation is not a protected category, does that mean that a person can be fired for being straight, as well?
Danna =]
Comments
Who decides?
Okay Danna, I'll bite on this one & hopefully we won't end up at loggerheads with each other again!
My personal opinion is that we don't get to decide on some of the things you mentioned, such as race. Our ancestry/birth determines them. Whites don't become black just because they marry a black person (or any other number of mixes either), any more than a boy can say he is a girl. We are what we are.
Most of America would be considered mutts if you want to get down to who is "purebred" anything these days. I'm a mixture of Manx, Choctaw Indian, Cherokee Indian and Irish, with an Englishman/woman or two thrown in back down the way somewhere.
As far as employers making decisions based on prejudices, appearances, or whatever, I know in my state that an employee can be fired for any reason. . . the employer does not have to even give a reason. They can fire a person for being ugly or because the employer don't like their relatives or whatever. Thats part of the freedom of America. Would you have it any other way? Think about owning your own small business and having the decision of whom you can hire or fire decided by the government.
If an employer fires someone for being gay or on the assumption they are gay, then that speaks more to the employers unreasonableness or bias than anything else. But if you start making sexual orientation a protected category in whether an employer can or cannot fire you, then you are getting into something much deeper that can backfire in a big way.
As for whether someone can put a label on whether a person is gay or not gay, who cares what they think? You are what you are. If you are straight and march in gay rights parades then, as an adult, you very well know you are setting yourself up for people to make assumptions about your sexual tendencies, so you shouldn't care if you wear that label. Like my mom used to always tell us kids "You're known by the company you keep". It was true then, its true now and always will be.
The writer saying kids (adoptive) should not be identified by race
because racial affiliation is by choice, is being ridiculous. Of course you may hang out with or marry into whatever race you wish, that is your choice in racial affiliation, but you are still what you are born, and there is no choice there. If she was speaking in terms of not identifying their race when trying to place them, then that was even a stupider remark because many couples would not take a child of another race and why on God's Green Earth would a person put a little child in the position of hearing those words, "They don't want you because you're. . .whatever."
I don't really understand about your description of your brother in law. Is he white, raised Iranian or are you saying he is caucasian because he is light skinned? My son's friend is considered bi-racial by most because his mom is white and his dad from Saudi Arabia. He has his dad's features, but would still be bi-racial even if he appeared totally white. Although technically he is bi-racial,
most folks around this area when speaking of bi-racial are remarking on white/black mix. We also have lots of Indian/white mix here, but no one refers to them as bi-racial.
Fern, it sounds like where yo
Fern, it sounds like where you live they have what is called "at-will" employment, which is the same as what we have in Ohio. As I understand it, it means that both parties to an employment contract can terminate the employment at any time and for any reason. But I wonder how that meshes with federally protected classes, such as women and minorities, or people with disabilities. Does at-will employment really mean you can say to someone "I'm firing you because you are black" and get away with it? I'm just asking, because I don't know.
As far as my BIL, he's Caucasian. But he's not Anglo-Saxon. He's Persian, with dark skin. *Technically,* my nephew is not biracial because both of his parents are Caucasian. But because he's not completely Anglo-Saxon, people assume he's not Caucasian. I think most people think that Caucasian and Anglo-Saxon are the same, that if you have "white" skin you're Caucasian but if you have "dark" skin you're not. What I was getting at is, who decides what my nephew is? Yes, he knows he's Caucasian, but if other people view him as biracial, is he socially biracial by default?
That's what I was trying to ask--where is the line between what someone says they are and what other people say they are? If you are biracial white/black, is it reasonable to insist that you be identified white when most people will assume you are black based on your outward appearance?
Incidentally, I agree with you that it's ridiculous to say children available for adoption should not be described by race on waiting child lists. But the author's point was that you can't always tell by looking at someone what they are.
You said, "You are what you are." But what happens if what you are and what you look like are two different things?
I don't have any answers here. I'm not looking for people to agree or disagree with me. I'm just curious about how society defines people. Frank and I have been thinking and talking a lot about race recently because we will be adopting an African child.
Danna =]
No answers, more questions
These are some very thought provoking questions, Danna. I can understand how perceptions and labelling of race would weigh heavily on your mind at the moment. Your family will undoubtedly encounter many obstacles and difficult attitudes as you add to your family. In the end, I truly believe that your love for Abrehem will overcome all prejudices encountered, and I hope that they are few and far between.
I think that, in America, "racial affiliation" is still influenced by the legacy of the Jim Crow laws. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that persons were labelled as "colored" - and thus were denied civil rights - if they had as little as 1/32 African heritage. We've come a long way, but there we have a much longer journey ahead of us.
Jumping over to the issues of gender and sexual orientation, there was a fascinating show on the Discovery Health Channel the other night. It was called, Is it a boy or a girl? It's about children who are born with mixed sexual characteristics (aka intersexuals), and the complexities of gender identification. It will be on at 7 pm again tonight. This really blew me away, and left me with more questions than answers.
Rose
Wow, deep
Wow, those are some deep questions. They're also the kind of questions that the answers to generally make more questions. But I agree with Fern, somewhat. If YOU know that you're straight, then what does it matter what other people think about you? Sexual orientation is private and none of anybodys business. On the other hand, I'm don't know about where you live, but here in Oregon it's illegal to fire someone for their sexual orientation. I personally think that as long as you do your job, that people shouldn't be able to fire you for any reason, be it race or sexual orientation.
As to your brother in law, I actually do know the answer to that question. My sister in law is Iraqi (technically an Iraqi Kurd). Her family left Iraq about the time that Hussein came into power, because her father could see the way that the wind was blowing in that quarter. She was born here in the US and raised in the US. My bil (my hubby's brother) is very anglo saxon. I'm doing their genealogy, and they're english and celtic. They have white blond hair, blue eyes, and very pale skin. So I was curious and asked my sil what their kids are. Technically they are caucasion. When filling out forms, that's what they put, because they are. Frankly, racial forms are ridiculous anyway. My race is human, my color is white, and my nationality is German/English (heavy on the German side). But even that doesn't go into that much detail, because I'm half anglo saxon german, and a quarter german jew.
Totally off the subject though, is this. My nephew (the half Iraqi one) is 14. He mentioned that at school someone called him and anti sematic jew hater. (He was laughing at the kid.) I asked him if he told the kid that he's half iraqi, and he gave me a 'look' and said "Of course not!". My nephew is afraid for anyone to know that he's Iraqi because of the way that people are treating Iraqi Americans these days. (My SIL has gotten some really nasty phone calls.) It really irritates me that Taylor (and Jackson and Katrina)have to be secrative about their heritage. Anyway, my private tangent.
But also, like Fern said, it's very hard to find an American who's not a mutt. And if they aren't mutts, chances are they're first, second, or third generation Americans. (I'm fourth Generation. My family came to America shortly before Hitler took power - luckily.) Most Americans' aren't even sure of their heritage.
Regarding the job thing, in m
Regarding the job thing, in my state an employer can fire a person for whatever reason, but I failed to say that jobs such as state jobs and union jobs would have some protection in that area,if I'm not mistaken. For instance, a school teacher can't just be fired because they don't like him/her.
There was a time and it may still be that way, that anyone known to have a drop of African American blood would be considered African American. I think perhaps that would be a society induced label and if you have the characteristics of an African American, you can call yourself white all day long and society will never see you that way.
I don't mean that in a bad way, just stating a fact.
I'm sure you have your work cut out for you, Danna, in adopting an African child. Society will put their own face on it, but somehow, you give the impression of being able to handle it. Also, your area may be more progressive than where I live. That makes a difference also. Mixed families are becoming more common here and there aren't as many raised eyebrows,etc.
As a note of interest, my old dictionary gives the following description of caucasian (& this is Websters-1972) :
"of or relating to the white race of mankind as classified according to physical features; of or relating to the white race as defined by law specifically as composed of persons of European, No African, or southwest Asian ancestry"
just more thoughts
I had many gay friends in grad school. Some of them pursued "queer studies" as a subspecialty. Then, a gay man -- who really identified himself as Mr. Queer Theory -- and a lesbian woman -- again, Ms. Lesbian Feminism -- decided to form a couple. And it was so bizarre, because they seemed to continue to identify themselves as gay even though they lived together like a straight couple. I believe they may have gotten married after school.
That was the point at which I threw up my hands and said, even in my efforts to be supremely open, understanding, and accepting, I have no clue about sexual identity and I probably never will. But -- in the crazy world of grad school -- I was a bit miffed that two people who had played the "identity politics" game suddenly seemed to have their cake and eat it too! And although I still think straight/gay/bi is largely a factor of nature, not nurture, examples like this one again make me say -- I'm just staying out of it!
I think in terms of race we are a bit behind the curve in America. Maybe someone else can speak to this better than I, but in Britain and many other places biracial families, children, and people are so commonplace that I don't think the labels are so socially important as they are here. When I was last in England the papers were doing a series on "Beige Britain" -- the very high numbers of biracial people after centuries of interracial sex and marriage. (That's what happens when the sun never sets on your empire!) Anyway, I think it won't be too long before being biracial is so common here too that it is not considered any kind of "special" or "problem" category demographically or otherwise.
Race Literacy Quiz
I found this link on the Yahoo group I participate in for clients of our adoption agency. It's a race literacy quiz.
http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/quiz.htm
RACE LITERACY QUIZ
What differences make a difference?
The Race Literacy Quiz was developed by California Newsreel, in association with the Association of American Colleges and Universities. The myths and misconceptions it raises are explored in the documentary series RACE - The Power of an Illusion, available on video from California Newsreel at www.newsreel.org or 1-877-811-7495. For more information and background, visit the companion Web site at www.PBS.org/Race.
I thought question 4, and its answer, were interesting in light of the discussion we were having here.
4. Members of a race can be identified by their:
A. Blood group
B. Skin color
C. Ancestry
D. Genes
E. None of the above
F. All of the above
Answer:
There are no traits, no characteristics, not even one gene that is present in all members of one so-called race and absent in another.
The A, B, and O blood groups can be found in all the world's peoples (the percentage of Estonians and Papua New Guineans with A, B, and O blood are almost exactly identical). Skin color tends to correlate with the earth's geographic latitude not race; sub-Saharan Africans, the Dravidians and Tamils of southern Asia, and Melanesians from the Pacific all have very dark skin. Ancestry is difficult to trace; we all have two parents, four grandparents, etc. If you could trace your family back 30 generations, slightly more than 1,000 years, you'd find one billion ancestors.
Danna =]
at-will employment
At-will states are still subject to Federal EEOC laws because Federal trumps state.
Post new comment