Jeffrey M. Fish's "Mixed Blood," actually was as amazing as Professor Gaunt said it would be. I didn't struggle to relate to the content. I also feel that I learned from it. Race is definitely socially constructed, as Fish says. The physical characteristics that we commonly associate with blacks, whites, Hispanics, or Asians, occur in other races as well. The different textures of hair, such as curly or straight, are not exclusive to a particular region. If that were the case, than people would easily fit into racial categories. In Puerto Rico (as I have been told by family), the inhabitants come in various shades and they classify themselves as white, black or Indio (or India for women). These social constructions are offensive and cause unnecessary division. My grandmother, for instance, would be white. I'm tan so I fall under the India category. As a result, my own grandmother is offended by me. My sister is white so she's favored over me. It's unnecessary.
Also, here in America racial categories have some variety. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, other, multiracial. I've never really understood why we have to explicitly state our race on a census. Why not something more specific or less offensive? Like, ancestral origins and you list all that apply. Few people in this world aren't mixed.
I also found the tipos of Brazil to be extremely interesting. I had trouble placing myself into a category though. I could be a morena because I have brown hair that is slightly wavy (when I don't straighten it), my skin is tan, and my lips aren't thin; however, I do have a narrow nose. But no other tipos fit me. This chapter was extremely informative because it made me see how ineffective racial groups actually are. I never saw that before because when I hear Hispanic, which is what I identify myself as, I think of a pretty inclusive category.
Fish, Jeffrey M. "Mixed Blood." Conformity and Conflict. 4th edition. Pearson. 2008. pp. 84-94.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're right when you say 'Hispanic' is very inclusive. What exactly is Hispanic? The term is so ambiguous that, to me at least, it's lost almost all its meaning. At this point, I think people here just refer to Hispanics as people that speak Spanish. So it really is just a category defined by language--very, very broadly based. Spain is a completely different country from, say, Argentina. An Argentinian will be highly offended if you call him a Spaniard, and vice versa. So why group both together? I guess it's all about being politically correct--Spanish-speaking is fine, but Hispanic is just a strange way of saying Spanish-speaking.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I'm from Ukraine, but I speak Russian, not Ukrainian. If you call me Russian, I won't correct you because that's just the way culture has "deemed" it.
I don't speak Spanish though. So, I just feel like Hispanic is broader than that.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! Regarding Steven's comments. We all have to be careful not to judge these terms by how you are reacting to them today rather than exploring how the term makes sense in the context of issues raised in the chapters (both Kottak and Fish). Why do nations have races? What utility does it serve on a national or governmental level that does not necessarily jive with how people use the terms on a social and interpersonal level like family?
ReplyDelete