Epimetheus Speaks: A Horse of Another Color (originally published 10/08/93)

Individuality is what makes these conflicts unavoidable; individuality not only representing a difference in say, gender, or physical makeup, but also right down to fundamental patterns of thought. Each and every human being has a different way of thinking than the next one; we all have our own subjective makeup that we may never be able to share with another human being, barring actual mind to mind communication. Every person has a different set of memories, and thus a different take on reality than everyone else. For example, I could look at a chair and think "Oh, it's a chair," and that would be the end of it. But someone else looking at the chair may think "My God! That chair is an antique Louis XIV original!" or even someone else thinking, "My Aunt Hattie had a chair just like that one." Three separate realities for the same chair induced by three different people. Neat, huh?

It follows that people, being inherently individual, are going to have a difficult time doing anything as a collective entity. Over the course of history, humanity developed lots and lots of methods of dealing with this problem - as many methods as there are different types of government. Each of these methods has some particular practice or ideology that brings out the inherent common characteristics of all the people it governs; a theocracy makes everyone believe that they are all equal under one divine authority, while a democracy makes all humans innately equal under the law. The trick is to bring out those common traits to make people more conducive to each other. A person thinks - "I'm an American, dammit!" or "We're all girls here," or what have you.

There have been disputes over what labels are valid and what labels aren't. Certain labels have an undefinable air about them that doesn't fit in quite right with everyone, or isn't as clear as a label like male/female. One of these labels is ethnicity. What does one mean when they say ethnic background? An example of an ethnic background might be Jewish, or Bosnian. The definition of "ethnic" is much too unclear for my taste; is it nationality being described, or religious background, or what?

There have even been those who have claimed that the Jewish ethnicity can also be described as a race of people, considering their history. What kind of implications does this have for the definitions of race and ethnicity? Let's consider Jewish history for a moment; the Jewish ethnicity began in the Middle East, in Israel, long long ago, in the times of the Old Testament. Various religious practices defined these people early on, such that their culture could subsist and prevail; e.g. marriage within the religion, strict social codes, etc. These practices shaped the way the Jewish people lived their lives, in a way different than other neighboring peoples, which led them to be persecuted for not adhering to the standards of the others. So why then are they given the attributes of a race? For that matter, what are the attributes of a race?

Let's take a typical race. Oh, say, African-American. What does that mean, African-American? It means a person of color with heritage from Africa is now living in America. So what does this say? That a person with black features is considered African, and being African defines his race. Does this sound right? Okay then. So what about those people from Puerto Rico who have similar features? Or people from South America with dark skin? Are they "African-American" as well? Does this mean that it is mere geographic boundary that defines a "race"? Why not take it to its extreme and say that every country has its own "race"? Here is where the distinguishing between ethnic background and race becomes blurred, perhaps dangerously so.

And what is the point of distinguishing such features anyway? Why is it necessary to fill out what nationality/race/ethnicity I am on a form? Being Greek, does that mean I fall into the "other" when I fill in my race? Greeks aren't even considered on such forms; go to any Korean person and see how insulted they are when you call them Japanese, or how insulted a Japanese person is when you call him Chinese - yet "asian" is a category on the form. Native American is considered one of the options, but the indian nations were once as varied ethnically as any Balkan or Caucausian states. But is physical distinction that important a factor in determining the quality of a person? I don't think so, and neither I would say, do most Americans. Yet there is still this pervading feeling of detachment among all our different cultures; we're losing our connections with each other.

We are dividing and sub-dividing our culture into smaller and smaller ethnic groupings that, in the end, will only serve to destroy American culture as a whole. I'm not saying that it's bad to express your indivdual heritage, only that the American "melting pot" is no longer working as it once did. Our strength as a nation, our identity as Americans, is losing ground to the self-serving political aspirations of a few corrupt, manipulative legislators who play upon the differences of people to create issues and tension for their campaigns. I said before that I believed conflict to be inevitable - that doesn't mean that we need politicians playing them up to make their positions look more important.

Preserving heritage is one of the things I consider vastly important, if only to carry on the traditions that make up our selves. But those who would categorize you and twist your perceptions to their own ends want to take this self-pride to its extreme - in the end, we would lose everything that we hope to stand for as a nation; the opportunity to make things better for everyone (in the world, not just here), and the monumental task of preserving our past for our children.

Back To Top

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.